Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for camera recommendations

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd check
here to see if anyone could recommend something with the following
features.

1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our pictures
because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post processing).

2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn on
and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second shot in
case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is faster?

3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and worse
light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the other
criteria, but it's not my main priority.

4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been digital
for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back. But, we don't
need a bunch of professional controls to worry about. Basically, we want to
turn it on and take a picture.

5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital zoom).

6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 

Thanks for any suggestions!

Anthony

More about : camera recommendations

Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:40:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'd say the Sony Cybershot DSC-P150 or DSC-200, except that it does have a
weaker flash and wouldn't illuminate a dark room very well if it were a
larger room. It starts up VERY quickly and has quick response time--and is
very much a "automatic" type of camera. Also, typically Sonys focus very
well.

Incidentally, regarding issue (3)--the Sony DSCP150 (and 200) is a 7
megapixel. Even if you don't think you will need that much, I think it would
be foolish to shoot at lower resolution if you buy that camera. Otherwise,
you might as well by a cheap 2 or 3 megapixel model & be done with it.
Storage-issues aside, I have NEVER understood why anyone would buy a
high-resolution camera and "downgrade" its quality; that's just flat-out
foolish to do that.

Another good choice would be the Fuji Finepix F10, which is a 6-megapixel
camera. It has quick startup and shooting times and may not have as weak of
a flash as the Sony--and it has better quality at higher ISOs (meaning it
might not be as "grainy" or dim in low-light). According to the review at
dpreview.com (review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/) it
also has quick autofocus.

The only drawback to these 2 cameras is that they use special memory--the
Sony, Memory Stick; the Fuji, xD.

If you really don't need more resolution than for a 4x6, an older 2 or 3
megapixel model could be had on the cheap. Problem is, as they will likely
be an older camera (as 3 megapixels or even 4 is now "entry-level", 2
megapixels can't be found much anymore) they may not be as quick &
responsive as newer designs.

LRH


"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967C809DC715Bherhusband@216.196.97.136...
> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd check
> here to see if anyone could recommend something with the following
> features.
>
> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our pictures
> because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post processing).
>
> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn on
> and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second shot in
> case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is faster?
>
> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and worse
> light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the other
> criteria, but it's not my main priority.
>
> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been digital
> for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back. But, we don't
> need a bunch of professional controls to worry about. Basically, we want
> to
> turn it on and take a picture.
>
> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital zoom).
>
> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
>
> Anthony
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:37:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HerHusband <unknown@unknown.com> writes:
> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd check
> here to see if anyone could recommend something with the following
> features.
>
> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our pictures
> because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post processing).
>
> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn on
> and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second shot in
> case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is faster?
>
> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and worse
> light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the other
> criteria, but it's not my main priority.
>
> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been digital
> for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back. But, we don't
> need a bunch of professional controls to worry about. Basically, we want to
> turn it on and take a picture.
>
> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital zoom).
>
> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 


A Canon A75 A85 or A95 will do you no wrong. I've probably had 5
friends and family members pick one of these 3 items up and they can't
stop thanking me for the recommendation.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Related resources
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 8:46:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 12:40, HerHusband wrote:

> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd
> check here to see if anyone could recommend something with the
> following features.
>
> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our
> pictures because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post
> processing).
>
> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn
> on and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second
> shot in case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is
> faster?
>
> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and
> worse light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the
> other criteria, but it's not my main priority.
>
> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been
> digital for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back.
> But, we don't need a bunch of professional controls to worry about.
> Basically, we want to turn it on and take a picture.
>
> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital
> zoom).
>
> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!

Would you consider a USED digital camera, if it satisfied all your
criteria? Canon D30. I bought mine Summer of last year, off eBay, in
Mint condition with what originally came with it for around $400 US,
less lens. They're cheaper today. And as to lenses: get the one that
suits you. With an SLR, you're not stuck with the one attached to the
camera.

Check out the reviews of it:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/d30.html

If you want more megapixels, then the D60. Around $450 to $600 on eBay
last time I checked (about 2 months ago).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/d60.html


--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:18:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was going to recommend the exact thing. Got mine for $400, too, add a
used 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and you'll probably still be under $500.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
news:2F2ue.3637$Lr4.1625@fed1read03...
> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 12:40, HerHusband wrote:
>
>> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd
>> check here to see if anyone could recommend something with the
>> following features.
>>
>> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our
>> pictures because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post
>> processing).
>>
>> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn
>> on and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second
>> shot in case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is
>> faster?
>>
>> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
>> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and
>> worse light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the
>> other criteria, but it's not my main priority.
>>
>> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
>> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been
>> digital for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back.
>> But, we don't need a bunch of professional controls to worry about.
>> Basically, we want to turn it on and take a picture.
>>
>> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital
>> zoom).
>>
>> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 
>>
>> Thanks for any suggestions!
>
> Would you consider a USED digital camera, if it satisfied all your
> criteria? Canon D30. I bought mine Summer of last year, off eBay, in
> Mint condition with what originally came with it for around $400 US,
> less lens. They're cheaper today. And as to lenses: get the one that
> suits you. With an SLR, you're not stuck with the one attached to the
> camera.
>
> Check out the reviews of it:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/d30.html
>
> If you want more megapixels, then the D60. Around $450 to $600 on eBay
> last time I checked (about 2 months ago).
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60/
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/d60.html
>
>
> --
> Stefan Patric
> NoLife Polymath Group
> tootek2@yahoo.com
June 22, 2005 12:12:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Find a used Sony F717. Its hologram AF is nothing short
of magical. It can focus & expose perfect shots in any
amount of light -- even complete darkness.

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message news:Xns967C809DC715Bherhusband@216.196.97.136...
> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd check
> here to see if anyone could recommend something with the following
> features.
>
> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our pictures
> because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post processing).
>
> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn on
> and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second shot in
> case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is faster?
>
> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and worse
> light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the other
> criteria, but it's not my main priority.
>
> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been digital
> for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back. But, we don't
> need a bunch of professional controls to worry about. Basically, we want to
> turn it on and take a picture.
>
> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital zoom).
>
> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
>
> Anthony
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 12:23:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:40:15 -0500, HerHusband wrote:

> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd check
> here to see if anyone could recommend something with the following
> features.

I'll second Larry's recommendation of the Fuji F10. I believe it
meets more of your requirements than any other camera. The link he
provided to the review at dpreview.com may help show why, and answer
any other questions you may have.


> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our pictures
> because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post processing).

Short of getting an expensive DSLR that's also much larger and
heavier, there's no other camera I'm aware of that is better for
minimizing these problems when there's little available light.
There may be more options if you wait until next year. :) 


> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn on
> and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second shot in
> case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is faster?

The dpreview.com review mentioned above commented on the camera's
speed. It said that the startup time is "very fast", about 1
second. Focus speed is "excellent" and shutter lag is "superb - the
F10 is one of the few compact zoom cameras on the market that
actually feels as though when you press the button the picture is
taken instantaneously."

Even more important, if a flash is used, it will greatly lengthen
the time before you can take a second shot. The F10 is able to take
pictures without using the flash in conditions that would require
its use by other cameras. So where many other cameras might require
an additional flash-recharging delay of 3 to 10 seconds before the
next pictures could be taken, the F10 would be ready much more
quickly. If it has to use its internal flash, then it would also
operate more slowly, a "slightly sluggish" 3.3 seconds between
shots.


> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and worse
> light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the other
> criteria, but it's not my main priority.

As previously noted, the F10 has a 6mp sensor. But that's
adjustable in the camera's setup. Nothing unusual here, as
virtually all cameras give you the option of selecting lower
resolution to produce smaller files and store more pictures on the
camera's memory card. The F10 allows you to choose image sizes of
6mp, 3mp, 2mp or 0.3mp.


> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been digital
> for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back. But, we don't
> need a bunch of professional controls to worry about. Basically, we want to
> turn it on and take a picture.

You're in luck if you decide to get the F10. It's almost totally
automatic. I prefer cameras that allow apertures and shutter speeds
to be manually controlled, but the F10 permits none of that. The
only exposure control it has that I'm aware of is a slight amount of
exposure compensation.


> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital zoom).

It has a 3x optical zoom.


> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 

All of the affiliate retailers shown on the bottom of dpreview's
review pages have it for well under $500, ranging from $399.98
(Staples) to $301.75 (buydig.com).


dpreview quotes:
> Then there's the ISO 80-1600 sensitivity range, which comes thanks to a
> newly-developed 'Real Photo Processor' - as does the class-leading 500
> shot-per-charge battery life and very fast operation (with a claimed 0.01
> second shutter lag). Other features of note include a 2.5-inch screen,
> 3x optical zoom and VGA, 30 fps movie mode, but this is essentially a
> 'point-and-shoot' camera with little in the way of real manual control.

> It may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution, and is
> probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the potential
> offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity and low noise. I
> cannot emphasize enough the value of usable high ISO settings in a compact
> camera - from reducing camera shake to more natural low light portraits
> (without flash) to extended flash range and all the other advantages DSLR
> users take for granted and most compact users - stuck to ISO 200 (or 400
> at a push) can only dream of.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 7:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 19:18, Skip M wrote:

> I was going to recommend the exact thing. Got mine for $400, too, add
> a used 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and you'll probably still be under $500.

Isn't a 28-105 a little long in the tooth for a general purpose lens?
No wide angle. Just normal to tele. (The 35mm equivalent would be
45-168 on the D30.) Perhaps you one of those photographers with
telephoto eyes. ;-)

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
news:j_mue.77$8o.41@fed1read03...
> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 19:18, Skip M wrote:
>
>> I was going to recommend the exact thing. Got mine for $400, too, add
>> a used 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and you'll probably still be under $500.
>
> Isn't a 28-105 a little long in the tooth for a general purpose lens?
> No wide angle. Just normal to tele. (The 35mm equivalent would be
> 45-168 on the D30.) Perhaps you one of those photographers with
> telephoto eyes. ;-)
>
> --
> Stefan Patric
> NoLife Polymath Group
> tootek2@yahoo.com

It probably is, but there are few lenses of its quality available on the
used market that would fit, with the D30, under $500. The cheap WA Canons,
Sigmas, et al may not be the best choice. The OP just said 3x zoom, didn't
specify WA to Tele, or what. But my 28-135 was great on that camera, I
rarely pined for something else, and I did have a Sigma 17-35 to throw on
the front, if need be.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 12:09:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HerHusband wrote:
> We are thinking about getting a new digital camera, so I thought I'd check
> here to see if anyone could recommend something with the following
> features.
>
> 1. GOOD low light performance! I'm tired of deleting 1/3 of our pictures
> because they are too dark, grainy, or blurry (even after post processing).
>
> 2. FAST response time. Our Olympus D-550 seems to take forever to turn on
> and snap a picture quickly. It also takes forever to take a second shot in
> case we missed the first one. Certainly something out there is faster?
>
> 3. 3 MEGAPIXELS. We rarely have prints made and when we do 4x6 is the
> biggest we get. More resolution just means bigger files to store and worse
> light sensitivity. I wouldn't reject a 5MP camera if it met the other
> criteria, but it's not my main priority.
>
> 4. AUTOMATIC. We're just amateurs who want to be able to take pictures
> quickly and easily, usually on the spur of the moment. We've been digital
> for over 5 years now and have no intention of turning back. But, we don't
> need a bunch of professional controls to worry about. Basically, we want to
> turn it on and take a picture.
>
> 5. A DECENT ZOOM. 3X optical would be fine (No interest in digital zoom).
>
> 6. UNDER $500. Obviously cheaper is better... :) 
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
>
> Anthony

Point 1-6 above all point towards the Fuji F10! It has *THE* best low
light performance and fastest response times for a non-dslr (that's
1-2). It's 6mp, automatic, 3x zoom, and under $500 (3-6).

Go for the fuji f10. It's almost as if you've asked for it by name.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 2:47:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike,

> Point 1-6 above all point towards the Fuji F10! It has *THE* best low
> light performance and fastest response times for a non-dslr (that's
> 1-2). It's 6mp, automatic, 3x zoom, and under $500 (3-6).
> Go for the fuji f10. It's almost as if you've asked for it by name.

A few folks have recommended the F10, and it does seem to meet all of my
requirements. I'm not crazy about the breakout box idea for battery
charging, image transfers, etc., but I suppose that's a small issue to gain
all the other advantages.

I'll have to check one out at the local stores and see how it "feels" to
me.

Thanks everyone for your recommendations!

Anthony
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HerHusband wrote:
> Mike,
>
> > Point 1-6 above all point towards the Fuji F10! It has *THE* best low
> > light performance and fastest response times for a non-dslr (that's
> > 1-2). It's 6mp, automatic, 3x zoom, and under $500 (3-6).
> > Go for the fuji f10. It's almost as if you've asked for it by name.
>
> A few folks have recommended the F10, and it does seem to meet all of my
> requirements. I'm not crazy about the breakout box idea for battery
> charging, image transfers, etc., but I suppose that's a small issue to gain
> all the other advantages.
>

Well, the camera might've had to be bigger had all those things you
don't really need in your pocket been integrated into its body. Just
leave the "breakout box" by your computer, hooked up, as if it was a
cradle, which it effectively is, and forget out it.

> I'll have to check one out at the local stores and see how it "feels" to
> me.
>
> Thanks everyone for your recommendations!
>
> Anthony
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 2:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> A few folks have recommended the F10, and it does seem to meet all of
>> my requirements. I'm not crazy about the breakout box idea for
>> battery charging, image transfers, etc., but I suppose that's a small
>> issue to gain all the other advantages.

> Well, the camera might've had to be bigger had all those things you
> don't really need in your pocket been integrated into its body. Just
> leave the "breakout box" by your computer, hooked up, as if it was a
> cradle, which it effectively is, and forget about it.

My main concern would be traveling. In other words, having to take the
cables and breakout box along to recharge the battery.

However.... If the camera can "really" take close to 500 pictures on a
battery, it might be easier to buy an extra battery or two and take those
along instead of all the charger cables.

Back at home, I'm more likely to get an XD card reader for my computer,
than to have to hook up all those cables, run down the camera battery, etc.

Assuming we choose the F10, I'll probably pick up a 512Meg or 1Gig memory
card, and an extra battery. That should give us plenty of capacity for
taking vacation pictures with minimal "Stuff" to carry along.

Thanks!

Anthony
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 3:36:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HerHusband wrote:
> >> A few folks have recommended the F10, and it does seem to meet all of
> >> my requirements. I'm not crazy about the breakout box idea for
> >> battery charging, image transfers, etc., but I suppose that's a small
> >> issue to gain all the other advantages.
>
> > Well, the camera might've had to be bigger had all those things you
> > don't really need in your pocket been integrated into its body. Just
> > leave the "breakout box" by your computer, hooked up, as if it was a
> > cradle, which it effectively is, and forget about it.
>
> My main concern would be traveling. In other words, having to take the
> cables and breakout box along to recharge the battery.
>
> However.... If the camera can "really" take close to 500 pictures on a
> battery, it might be easier to buy an extra battery or two and take those
> along instead of all the charger cables.
>
> Back at home, I'm more likely to get an XD card reader for my computer,
> than to have to hook up all those cables, run down the camera battery, etc.
>
> Assuming we choose the F10, I'll probably pick up a 512Meg or 1Gig memory
> card, and an extra battery. That should give us plenty of capacity for
> taking vacation pictures with minimal "Stuff" to carry along.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Anthony

Just carry the "stuff" in a bag. All in all it's just a tiny box. I
doubt it even weighs a pound - camera and "stuff" - all put together.
!