Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for Easy to Use Digital Camera

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:28:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I am in the market for a digital camera that I'm going to surprise my
parents with.
First, they most important feature by far is Ease of Use! They do
have a PC that they will hook it up to and as well print from but
whenever they have gotten a film based camera they looked for one that
just had basic features such as built in flash, zoom, but other than
that they wanted it to be completely automatic with few manual
controls. I am very happy with Sony products but I have heard for
Digital Cameras Canon is good but yet as well I've heard Kodak makes
very easy to use cameras

Here are the features I'm looking for:

Easy to Use-By Far this is the most important
Built in Flash/Red Eye Reduction
Megapixels-I prefer 3.1 and above
LCD Screen-I would like this to be 2 inches or above
Ability to take 640*480 pictures in JPeg Format
Ability to take MPeg Movie Clips
Optical Zoom of 3x or greater
Has the Pictbridge Option
Easy to Copy Files To/From Computer (With my Sony I simply hook it up
via USB and with file explorerto/from drives)
Ability to add Cards for extra Memory (I assume all do this)
Good Battery Life and Comes with Battery Charger (nice if it would
tell how many minutes are left like the Sonys)
I'm not sure what it's called but the option where you can set the
camera to take a picture in 10 secs or so so you can pose and be ready


Image Stabilization would be a nice feature but not necessary

Anyway, I am totally lost but am looking for a camera that fits these
specifications. Any ideas of what I should be looking at? I prefer
to pay $200-$350 but will go up to $400 if necessary or slightly more.

More about : easy digital camera

Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:10:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:28:22 -0600, MarkW
<markwco@RemoveNoSpamcomcast.net> wrote:

>Here are the features I'm looking for:
>
>Easy to Use-By Far this is the most important
>Built in Flash/Red Eye Reduction
>Megapixels-I prefer 3.1 and above
>LCD Screen-I would like this to be 2 inches or above
>Ability to take 640*480 pictures in JPeg Format
>Ability to take MPeg Movie Clips
>Optical Zoom of 3x or greater
>Has the Pictbridge Option
>Easy to Copy Files To/From Computer (With my Sony I simply hook it up
> via USB and with file explorerto/from drives)
>Ability to add Cards for extra Memory (I assume all do this)
>Good Battery Life and Comes with Battery Charger (nice if it would
> tell how many minutes are left like the Sonys)
>I'm not sure what it's called but the option where you can set the
>camera to take a picture in 10 secs or so so you can pose and be ready
>Image Stabilization would be a nice feature but not necessary

Almost all but the cheapest budget level has all or most of these
specs.


Why dont you get a Sony if you like your sony so much?
They have decent cameras. Heres the new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5
5 megs, red eye reduct, 3x optical, batteries and charger included
super long life, pict bridge 2.5 lcd , movies

They generally come with small mem cards only to test it . You usually
have to buy one in this case a mem stick/pro

Dont know about battery min readout. Most cams have a graphic of a
battery on your LCD which shows it draining away as actual battery
life decreases with use rather than actual minute estimate.

$313 at Cicruit City now
http://tinyurl.com/a6auz


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021914sony_dscw5w7....
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/w5.html
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2005, MarkW wrote

> I am in the market for a digital camera that I'm going to surprise
> my parents with.
> First, they most important feature by far is Ease of Use! They do
> have a PC that they will hook it up to and as well print from but
> whenever they have gotten a film based camera they looked for one
> that just had basic features such as built in flash, zoom, but
> other than that they wanted it to be completely automatic with few
> manual controls. I am very happy with Sony products but I have
> heard for Digital Cameras Canon is good but yet as well I've heard
> Kodak makes very easy to use cameras

-snip feature list-

> Anyway, I am totally lost but am looking for a camera that fits
> these specifications. Any ideas of what I should be looking at?
> I prefer to pay $200-$350 but will go up to $400 if necessary or
> slightly more.

Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5; it'll set you back around
USD 250-300, I think. It's an excellent camera -- 5 megapixel, with
everything you list (and/or better specs), as well as an excellent
beginner's point-and-shoot setting which will do everything they want.

Some feature highlights are a 12X *optical* zoom (yes, 12X); unmatched
image stabilisation; an easy-to-access dial setting with a bunch of
pre-sets for various scenes -- portraits, night shots, etc.; fully-
featured if they want to play a bit further; very easy to hook up to
the PC; compatible with PictBridge, etc.

The only downside that might affect your choice is that the movie mode
(up to 30 fps, with audio) stores in QuickTime; dunno how important
that is.

I recently purchased an FZ20 -- slightly larger and has a few more
features than the FZ5, but otherwise very similar -- and I've played
around extensively with a friend's FZ5. I'm seriously impressed with
both cameras.

--
Cheers,
Harvey
Related resources
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:47:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"MarkW" <markwco@RemoveNoSpamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:n2qig1hb5mlitt5hcgbn2lunssdig4anjn@4ax.com...
>I am in the market for a digital camera that I'm going to surprise my
> parents with.
> First, they most important feature by far is Ease of Use! They do
> have a PC that they will hook it up to and as well print from but
> whenever they have gotten a film based camera they looked for one that
> just had basic features such as built in flash, zoom, but other than
> that they wanted it to be completely automatic with few manual
> controls. I am very happy with Sony products but I have heard for
> Digital Cameras Canon is good but yet as well I've heard Kodak makes
> very easy to use cameras
>
> Here are the features I'm looking for:
>
> Easy to Use-By Far this is the most important
> Built in Flash/Red Eye Reduction
> Megapixels-I prefer 3.1 and above
> LCD Screen-I would like this to be 2 inches or above
> Ability to take 640*480 pictures in JPeg Format
> Ability to take MPeg Movie Clips
> Optical Zoom of 3x or greater
> Has the Pictbridge Option
> Easy to Copy Files To/From Computer (With my Sony I simply hook it up
> via USB and with file explorerto/from drives)
> Ability to add Cards for extra Memory (I assume all do this)
> Good Battery Life and Comes with Battery Charger (nice if it would
> tell how many minutes are left like the Sonys)
> I'm not sure what it's called but the option where you can set the
> camera to take a picture in 10 secs or so so you can pose and be ready
>
>
> Image Stabilization would be a nice feature but not necessary
>
> Anyway, I am totally lost but am looking for a camera that fits these
> specifications. Any ideas of what I should be looking at? I prefer
> to pay $200-$350 but will go up to $400 if necessary or slightly more.

I love my Canon SD400. No MPEG movie files but AVI files. I don't connect
it straight to any of my PCs because I use card readers, but I'm very
impressed so far with the quality of the pictures and movies.

And it's tiny.
--
Cari (MS-MVP)
Printing & Imaging
August 22, 2005 5:39:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

> On 22 Aug 2005, MarkW wrote
>
>
>>I am in the market for a digital camera that I'm going to surprise
>>my parents with.
>>First, they most important feature by far is Ease of Use! They do
>>have a PC that they will hook it up to and as well print from but
>>whenever they have gotten a film based camera they looked for one
>>that just had basic features such as built in flash, zoom, but
>>other than that they wanted it to be completely automatic with few
>>manual controls. I am very happy with Sony products but I have
>>heard for Digital Cameras Canon is good but yet as well I've heard
>>Kodak makes very easy to use cameras
>
>
> -snip feature list-
>
>
>>Anyway, I am totally lost but am looking for a camera that fits
>>these specifications. Any ideas of what I should be looking at?
>>I prefer to pay $200-$350 but will go up to $400 if necessary or
>>slightly more.
>
>
> Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5; it'll set you back around
> USD 250-300, I think. It's an excellent camera -- 5 megapixel, with
> everything you list (and/or better specs), as well as an excellent
> beginner's point-and-shoot setting which will do everything they want.
>
> Some feature highlights are a 12X *optical* zoom (yes, 12X); unmatched
> image stabilisation; an easy-to-access dial setting with a bunch of
> pre-sets for various scenes -- portraits, night shots, etc.; fully-
> featured if they want to play a bit further; very easy to hook up to
> the PC; compatible with PictBridge, etc.
>
> The only downside that might affect your choice is that the movie mode
> (up to 30 fps, with audio) stores in QuickTime; dunno how important
> that is.
>
> I recently purchased an FZ20 -- slightly larger and has a few more
> features than the FZ5, but otherwise very similar -- and I've played
> around extensively with a friend's FZ5. I'm seriously impressed with
> both cameras.
>


Quicktime should not be a problem.

If you go Lumix, stay away from the FZ-5. Go FZ-20 and be happy you did.

Jan
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:31:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2005, Jan wrote
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

>> Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5.

-snip-

> The only downside that might affect your choice is that the movie
>> mode (up to 30 fps, with audio) stores in QuickTime; dunno how
>> important that is.
>>
>> I recently purchased an FZ20 -- slightly larger and has a few
>> more features than the FZ5, but otherwise very similar -- and
>> I've played around extensively with a friend's FZ5. I'm
>> seriously impressed with both cameras.

> Quicktime should not be a problem.
>
> If you go Lumix, stay away from the FZ-5. Go FZ-20 and be happy
> you did.

Well, I bought the FZ-20 and am very pleased with it, but I wanted the
extra features. I don't think I'd advise someone like the OP -- who
wants a high-quality camera that's going to be used mainly for point-
and-shoot -- to lay out the extra money for the additional features,
size, and weight of the FZ-20.

From what I've seen of the FZ-5 -- I borrowed one for a week -- it
seemed an excellent, smaller, lighter version; the build quality and
optics felt just fine for the market it was aimed at.

I've not seen reviews that say that the FZ-5 is a *poor* camera, so I'd
be interested to know what you consider to be its killer defects for
someone like the OP's parents -- that is, someone who wants a high-
quality camera that will mainly be used in auto mode.

--
Cheers,
Harvey
August 23, 2005 12:46:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On 8/22/2005 1:28 AM, MarkW wrote:
> I am in the market for a digital camera that I'm going to surprise my
> parents with.
> First, they most important feature by far is Ease of Use! They do
> have a PC that they will hook it up to and as well print from but
> whenever they have gotten a film based camera they looked for one that
> just had basic features such as built in flash, zoom, but other than
> that they wanted it to be completely automatic with few manual
> controls. I am very happy with Sony products but I have heard for
> Digital Cameras Canon is good but yet as well I've heard Kodak makes
> very easy to use cameras
>
> Here are the features I'm looking for:
>
> Easy to Use-By Far this is the most important
> Built in Flash/Red Eye Reduction
> Megapixels-I prefer 3.1 and above
> LCD Screen-I would like this to be 2 inches or above
> Ability to take 640*480 pictures in JPeg Format
> Ability to take MPeg Movie Clips
> Optical Zoom of 3x or greater
> Has the Pictbridge Option
> Easy to Copy Files To/From Computer (With my Sony I simply hook it up
> via USB and with file explorerto/from drives)
> Ability to add Cards for extra Memory (I assume all do this)
> Good Battery Life and Comes with Battery Charger (nice if it would
> tell how many minutes are left like the Sonys)
> I'm not sure what it's called but the option where you can set the
> camera to take a picture in 10 secs or so so you can pose and be ready
>
>
> Image Stabilization would be a nice feature but not necessary
>
> Anyway, I am totally lost but am looking for a camera that fits these
> specifications. Any ideas of what I should be looking at? I prefer
> to pay $200-$350 but will go up to $400 if necessary or slightly more.

As you mentioned, Kodak does make easy to use cameras. For instance
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=42...
August 23, 2005 5:46:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2005, Jan wrote
>
>>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5.
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>>The only downside that might affect your choice is that the movie
>>
>>>mode (up to 30 fps, with audio) stores in QuickTime; dunno how
>>>important that is.
>>>
>>>I recently purchased an FZ20 -- slightly larger and has a few
>>>more features than the FZ5, but otherwise very similar -- and
>>>I've played around extensively with a friend's FZ5. I'm
>>>seriously impressed with both cameras.
>
>
>>Quicktime should not be a problem.
>>
>>If you go Lumix, stay away from the FZ-5. Go FZ-20 and be happy
>>you did.
>
>
> Well, I bought the FZ-20 and am very pleased with it, but I wanted the
> extra features. I don't think I'd advise someone like the OP -- who
> wants a high-quality camera that's going to be used mainly for point-
> and-shoot -- to lay out the extra money for the additional features,
> size, and weight of the FZ-20.
>
> From what I've seen of the FZ-5 -- I borrowed one for a week -- it
> seemed an excellent, smaller, lighter version; the build quality and
> optics felt just fine for the market it was aimed at.
>
> I've not seen reviews that say that the FZ-5 is a *poor* camera, so I'd
> be interested to know what you consider to be its killer defects for
> someone like the OP's parents -- that is, someone who wants a high-
> quality camera that will mainly be used in auto mode.
>

Lens not as sharp. Panasonic 'explains' this by saying that the
additional pixels simply highlight the lower resolution(?).

Actually, the FZ-5 lens has 11 elements, FZ-20 has 13 - 2 extra,
low-dispersion elements. Pictures are sharper. Also, FZ-20 has the
"Pict. Adjust" option (see your menu) for sharpness, contrast, noise,
etc., which the FZ-5 does not.

The FZ-5 is not a 'poor' camera, but the FZ-20 is just better.

Jan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:16:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2005, JMW wrote
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

-snip-

>> I've not seen reviews that say that the FZ-5 is a *poor* camera,
>> so I'd be interested to know what you consider to be its killer
>> defects for someone like the OP's parents -- that is, someone who
>> wants a high- quality camera that will mainly be used in auto
>> mode.
>
> Lens not as sharp. Panasonic 'explains' this by saying that the
> additional pixels simply highlight the lower resolution(?).
>
> Actually, the FZ-5 lens has 11 elements, FZ-20 has 13 - 2 extra,
> low-dispersion elements. Pictures are sharper. Also, FZ-20 has
> the "Pict. Adjust" option (see your menu) for sharpness, contrast,
> noise, etc., which the FZ-5 does not.
>
> The FZ-5 is not a 'poor' camera, but the FZ-20 is just better.

Ah, thanks: I'd explored the "Pict Adjust" option a little, but hadn't
realised about the extra elements.

Changing the subject, the reviews I've read of the new FZ-30 don't seem
to be enamoured with it as a replacement for the FZ-20 -- apparently
some serious issues with noise.

--
Cheers,
Harvey
August 23, 2005 9:00:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005, JMW wrote
>
>>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>>>I've not seen reviews that say that the FZ-5 is a *poor* camera,
>>>so I'd be interested to know what you consider to be its killer
>>>defects for someone like the OP's parents -- that is, someone who
>>>wants a high- quality camera that will mainly be used in auto
>>>mode.
>>
>>Lens not as sharp. Panasonic 'explains' this by saying that the
>>additional pixels simply highlight the lower resolution(?).
>>
>>Actually, the FZ-5 lens has 11 elements, FZ-20 has 13 - 2 extra,
>>low-dispersion elements. Pictures are sharper. Also, FZ-20 has
>>the "Pict. Adjust" option (see your menu) for sharpness, contrast,
>>noise, etc., which the FZ-5 does not.
>>
>>The FZ-5 is not a 'poor' camera, but the FZ-20 is just better.
>
>
> Ah, thanks: I'd explored the "Pict Adjust" option a little, but hadn't
> realised about the extra elements.
>
> Changing the subject, the reviews I've read of the new FZ-30 don't seem
> to be enamoured with it as a replacement for the FZ-20 -- apparently
> some serious issues with noise.
>

Haven't yet heard about an FZ-30. The 20 seems to do very nicely, though.

Jan
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2005, JMW wrote
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

-snip-

>> Changing the subject, the reviews I've read of the new FZ-30
>> don't seem to be enamoured with it as a replacement for the FZ-20
>> -- apparently some serious issues with noise.
>>
> Haven't yet heard about an FZ-30. The 20 seems to do very nicely,
> though.

In case you're interested, there's a lot of talk about it on this
forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033&...

--
Cheers,
Harvey
August 24, 2005 5:35:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

> On 23 Aug 2005, JMW wrote
>
>>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>>>Changing the subject, the reviews I've read of the new FZ-30
>>>don't seem to be enamoured with it as a replacement for the FZ-20
>>>-- apparently some serious issues with noise.
>>>
>>
>>Haven't yet heard about an FZ-30. The 20 seems to do very nicely,
>>though.
>
>
> In case you're interested, there's a lot of talk about it on this
> forum:
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033&...
>

Once upon a time (i.e, the FZ-1 era) Panasonic gave exceptional value.
Seems those days are over.

Jan
!