Thinking about getting a new digital camera...any advice?

[694spdRT]

I would like a better digital camera than the one I have. Mine is about 5 years old and the picture quality is not the best. I want some get some clear shots once the '69 is done. 

Any recommendations on one with good picture quality that won't break the bank?

Thanks

[Silver R/T]

really depends on budget, ive got polaroid that i use to sell stuff on ebay and its about 5 yrs old, no zoom, real basic got it back then for $100. I would check ebay for some good deals, depends on zoom range you want and quality of camera too. i would recommend japanese brand

[694spdRT]

I have zoom on mine but the clarity is not as good as I would like.

[Chryco Psycho]

Check the canon S2 IS , awesome camera 

[Wakko]

I bought the Canon SD110 and an extra 256 card.  It's a 3.2 megapixel (good enough for snapshots and such) but it's main attraction to me was size.  It's the size of a pack of cigarettes and fits in my shirt pocket or pants pocket very unobtrusively.  I bought it over a year ago for about 150 bucks, I'm sure it's 100-120 now.  I keep it in my seat organizer at work (bangs around) and it has never broken...I'm quite pleased.

[bull]

Unless you're planning on doing professional photgraphy I'd just make sure the camera has at least 4 megapixels and both optical and digital zoom.

[694spdRT]

Thanks guys

I think my megapixels is much less than 4 right now...I will start shopping.

[BrianShaughnessy]

I didn't know much about them so I let the punk at best buy sell me a Sony S60 cybershot and some extra memory, case, batteries,   and a warranty.    Afterwards other folks said that's what they would have recommended.    I'm sure other people have spent less.

Most of the time for taking pics for here or whatever I just leave it in vga mode and it takes 150K pics that I don't have to shrink or do anything with.... just attach the file.      It also has 1.0, 2.0, 3.2, 4.1 meg modes,   and takes short movies too.

If Uma Thuman ever puts on a catsuit and hangs out by my car I'll be sure to set it to 4.1   


     

[IBsmokin]

I got the kodack easy share DX7630 with 6.1 megapixals, it cost me 450 bucks last winter, and I got 512 ram memory card for 50 bucks, so 500 bucks got me an awsome kick azz digital.   might as well buy somethign that will do the job right and will last for a while.
just remeber you get what you pay for, so if you wanna go out and save money and buy a cheap camera, that will not give too many options, the pics will not be all that great, and the camera will end up having mechanical problems, then do it.
But if you want something that will last, give you lots of options, take great pics, then go out and spend the extra 100 or 2 bucks and buy the best. or at least one of the top tendigital camera's.
Heres a link to the top ten cameras under 500 bucks.
( http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,62683,pg,2,00.asp )

[Recharger]

I do a lot of window shopping and browsing for digital cams, and from what I’ve seen Canon is probably making the best cameras out there right now.  The S2 IS Chryco mentioned is a great camera, especially if you are interested in long-zoom capabilities.  It was a bit bulky for my taste so I ended up with the A510, which is essentially a smaller version of the same camera (4x zoom instead of 12x.)  I got it pretty cheap, for about $160-165 online.  Unless something has changed since I last looked at cameras in the last 2 months, I think that A510 is the best camera out there for the money right now.  The SD200 is another nice 3MP Canon camera, similar in function and quality to the other two..  I decided against it only because it costs a few dollars more and a has fewer manual settings.  It’s by far the smallest though (about the size of a deck of cards) so if that’s important to you, check it out.

IMO, 3 MP is probably more than enough resolution for 95% of the typical amateur photographers out there.  The push for higher and higher resolution cameras is just a “scam” propagated by the camera manufacturers and electronics stores to continually sell new models for higher prices, as technology develops.  Honestly, I had a 2 MP camera for about 4 years and I can remember no more than 3 occasions where I felt like I needed a higher res cam.  (nature photography situations where distant leaves and grass turned out blurry)

If you get obsessed with your shopping like I do, check out imaging-resource.com or dpreview.com for some great comparisons and details on different models.  I’d recommend buying from either buydig.com, beachcamera.com or ecost.com.  You can save a decent amount vs. the big retail chains, and you don’t have to pay any taxes.

[TheGhost]

Check Wallmart.  I got this whole setup for $150.  All the pics I've recently posted were taken with that camera.

[last426]

Let me tell you my weird but true story.  I got my first about 7 years or so ago and loved it but it was very limited -- no removable memory or anything.  So in 1999 I got a Nikon Coolpix 800, supposedly a great camera.  Well, it came and that evening I was about to explore one of my fantasies.  A couple of hotties came over to my ity-bity San Francisco apartment to fool around and have fun -- of course they wanted to have pictures.  So, being the bon vivant that I'm not, we had some wine and the handholding began.  I quickly got the 5 megapixel camera and the 200 page book, took 10 minutes figuring out how the batteries went in, another 5 to figure out how to turn it on, and then had to go further and further into the book to figure out how to take a pic.  Suffice it to say two things, one, the camera was not a point and shoot, and two, the camera was a definite buzz kill.  So here we have a couple of young ladies getting more and more flustered with me trying to work the gadget.  I could have thrown that dumb thing away.  Instead, I stuck it in a drawer and got out the old standby.  Good thing too.  Astroglide really makes a mess. 

The moral of this story is get one that is simple enough to easily use but has enough resolution to take good pictures.  Most of the other "features" can just be distractions.  Kim

[69_500]

How much is it to break the bank? I broke the bank when purchasing a Nikon D100 a few years back. However from the quality of the pictures that it is turning out I'd say I'm coming out ahead.

I wish I had the money to upgrade to a Cannon 20D, but I don't have $5,000 laying around to get a body and a few lenses.

[Mopar440+6]

Ive got a Canon PowerShot A75 3.2 Megapixel camera. Enough features to take awesome pics but few enough features not to be distracting. Plus it was cheap enough ($250 if I remember correctly) that Im not afraid to take it to the car shows...

[SLIKK 70]

You might check out the Olympus C-750. 4.0 Mega pixel. and 10 X zoom. More bells and whistles than I needed but caught a great deal. 

[greatwn73]

Just replaced my old Sony(3 1/2 floppy) with a Minolta dimage Z3 and although its not the most expensive picture quality is great ,easy to use and software for computer easy to follow.Buy the biggest chip you can find. Also got a Olympus d580 but haven't even unpacked it.




these are pics from the minolta

[694spdRT]

The camera I have now is one of the Sony 3 1/2" floppy ones with the 10X zoom. It has been a good camera...maybe I am expecting too much. The close ups are good, but the details can get fuzzy on full car shots.

Here is what I am talking about...these are pictures I took of the resto progress on the '69 this weekend. The details are not great in the first picture but, the close up of the front in the second shot is not bad.

[Old Moparz]

Let me tell you my weird but true story.   I got my first about 7 years or so ago and loved it but it was very limited -- no removable memory or anything.   So in 1999 I got a Nikon Coolpix 800, supposedly a great camera.   Well, it came and that evening I was about to explore one of my fantasies.   A couple of hotties came over to my ity-bity San Francisco apartment to fool around and have fun -- of course they wanted to have pictures.   So, being the bon vivant that I'm not, we had some wine and the handholding began.   I quickly got the 5 megapixel camera and the 200 page book, took 10 minutes figuring out how the batteries went in, another 5 to figure out how to turn it on, and then had to go further and further into the book to figure out how to take a pic.   Suffice it to say two things, one, the camera was not a point and shoot, and two, the camera was a definite buzz kill.   So here we have a couple of young ladies getting more and more flustered with me trying to work the gadget.   I could have thrown that dumb thing away.   Instead, I stuck it in a drawer and got out the old standby.   Good thing too.   Astroglide really makes a mess.  

The moral of this story is get one that is simple enough to easily use but has enough resolution to take good pictures.   Most of the other "features" can just be distractions.   Kim

Less is more. 

[Troy]

Well, I don't really know what is best for you but I can tell you what I have. My camera is a Sony CyberShot DSC-P92 5 megapixel. My parents have a DSC-P72 which is a 3.2 megapixel I believe (same camera other than the resolution). I bought mine a year or so after they got theirs and paid roughly the same price ~ $275. I'm sure it's much cheaper now though. The picture quality is really good and the resolution is great for resto pics because you can zoom in a long way for all the details. It only has a 3X optical zoom but these cameras are so small that anything above about 1.5X will require a tripod to hold it steady. Do NOT rely on digital zoom in a camera as all it does is mangle the image quality. I bought an extra 256MB memory stick and I can get about 105 pictures at the highest setting. This has been more than enough for every occasion except my vacation. At shows I'll sometimes lower the settings a notch and I can still get 180 pics or so at really good quality. Since most of mine go on the web, I shrink them and change the quality with software once I get home but keep the original "just in case". I'll never be a professional photographer so this one is simple enough to use right out of the box, has lots of features if you need them, and has handled everything I needed it for except action shots. Most cheaper digital cameras can't handle high speed or low light very well and this one is no exception.

A friend of mine has one of those tiny little Canon cameras but he paid twice as much and the picture quality is about the same. He can fit his in a shirt pocket though so I guess that's nice.

Troy

[694spdRT]

Well, I don't really know what is best for you but I can tell you what I have. My camera is a Sony CyberShot DSC-P92 5 megapixel. My parents have a DSC-P72 which is a 3.2 megapixel I believe (same camera other than the resolution). I bought mine a year or so after they got theirs and paid roughly the same price ~ $275. I'm sure it's much cheaper now though. The picture quality is really good and the resolution is great for resto pics because you can zoom in a long way for all the details. It only has a 3X optical zoom but these cameras are so small that anything above about 1.5X will require a tripod to hold it steady. Do NOT rely on digital zoom in a camera as all it does is mangle the image quality. I bought an extra 256MB memory stick and I can get about 105 pictures at the highest setting. This has been more than enough for every occasion except my vacation. At shows I'll sometimes lower the settings a notch and I can still get 180 pics or so at really good quality. Since most of mine go on the web, I shrink them and change the quality with software once I get home but keep the original "just in case". I'll never be a professional photographer so this one is simple enough to use right out of the box, has lots of features if you need them, and has handled everything I needed it for except action shots. Most cheaper digital cameras can't handle high speed or low light very well and this one is no exception.

A friend of mine has one of those tiny little Canon cameras but he paid twice as much and the picture quality is about the same. He can fit his in a shirt pocket though so I guess that's nice.

Troy

So if I use the zoom feature picture quality will go up or down? It is dark out or I would try it now.

Is it best to back the zoom off and then walk to the preverbial sweet spot? I never thought about the zoom issue before.

BTW $275 is not a bad price...$5000 I'll just buy another Charger and look at it in real life. 

Thanks

[Troy]

If you use an optical zoom the picture quality will be the same - provided you can keep from moving the camera. If you use a digital zoom the software in the camera basically "guesses" what the scene would look like up close and you'll lose some detail. Your best bet is to walk to the right spot if possible.

Good place for camera reviews:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/p92.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

Office Depot has the P72 for $229:
http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?level=SK&id=595666&cm_mmc=Traffic%20Leader-_-Google-_-Cameras%20%26%20Scanners-_-sony%20dsc%20p72

They've got a whole bunch for under $500:
http://www.officedepot.com/browse.do?Ne=6+1+10313&Nr=FILTER(domestic)&N=295+10324

[694spdRT]

Thanks for the info Troy.

A Big Thanks to everyone else as well.

[472 R/T SE]

I have an older version Olympus.  C4040ZOOM.  4 megapixels.  Any more than 4 is a waste unless you plan on blowing up pictures bigger than 8.5"X11".  It takes awesome pictures.   I agree, buy the best within your means.  You'll be thankful in the long run.

My new one is a Olympus E300 EVOLT SLR.  Pretty cool camera.  I love taking pix so it was the first thing I bought when I sold Blue.

Good Luck.