|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Who makes a good digital camra?
I am coming into the 21st century! I want to buy a decent camra, hopefully for $200 or less.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_1/102-3453697-1587364?ie=UTF8&keywords=digital%20camra&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adigital%20camra%2Ci%3Aphoto&page=1 A quick search comes up with a bunch, I know nothing about them. But I know one of you guys does! So which one is good?
__________________
1999 SL500 1969 280SE 2023 Ram 1500 2007 Tiara 3200 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Canon PowerShot All The Way
I love my Canon SD630.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=12956 Width and height is equal to a credit card, depth is obviously bigger. This thing is teeny but packs a high quality punch. I had a crappy Sony 2MP camera for about 5 years. It took the worst pictures ever, but I spent about $160 on it in 2002. For under $200, I don't think you'll be happy with the results. If you are happy, you'll probably outgrow it quickly. I strongly recommend any Canon camera, especially the PowerShot models. There is an SD430 that is quite a good camera. It'd probably do you quite well. I know people that have had their PowerShot for a long time and are still 100% satisfied with it.
__________________
-justin 1987 300TD, 1987 300TD 2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B000ENPDSW/sr=1-1/qid=1168578011/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3453697-1587364?ie=UTF8&s=photo
If its worth the extra $65 I'll do it. I want one that takes decent pictures. I already have a crappy one built into my cell phone.
__________________
1999 SL500 1969 280SE 2023 Ram 1500 2007 Tiara 3200 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Wow...this could take a while!
I just researched for months before finally purchasing one for the family and for my daughter. I believe at the $200 or less range, you can do about the same no matter what brand you purchase. Lens quality is important. A camera with a superior lens can make up for a lower megapixel rating over a camera with a superior megapixel rating with a poor lens. But again, in the $200 and under range, you're are not likely to be dealing with lens comparisons. I would stick with name brands like Kodak, Canon, Sony, and even HP. My daughter has the Samsung. 5 megapixel and her pics are of a decent quality. Best of all, if she loses or damages the doggone thing, I'm not out a lot of cash! What will kill your budget is that pretty much all of the cameras come with a measly storage card or none at all. So figure the cost of a 1 or 2GB card ($40-$90), rechargeable batteries and charger ($15-25), and a camera case ($10-$30) to hold the camera and accessory USB cords and such. Btw, I picked up a Canon SR (something) for around $399. My digital camera friends all swore by the Canon line!
__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle 2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car 2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver 2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Nikon. The base cost is high, more than $200, but the per year cost is low. Get a D40 or up. I still have my F2 from the late 70's.
__________________
Regards Warren Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL ENTER > = (HP RPN) Not part of the in-crowd since 1952. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I just bought my camera 4 months ago and I was pretty much dead set on getting a Sony or a Casio (they make really, really slim cameras). Well, both of those cameras cost about the same as the Canon, but took twice as long to use because their little camera brains were slow and lame. Of the cameras mentioned above, I can only recommend Canon or Sony. Samsung is not a camera company, I don't trust their camera products. I dislike Kodak and HP because their products always come out bloated, slow and try to do to much for you "at the push of a button". My Canon does what I ask and then gets out of my way. WRT to the accessories, buy yourself a good case, and a decent sized memory card. The camera will come with a good battery and charger (don't buy anything that takes "handy AA sized rechargeable batteries", they don't last long). In the 4 months I've owned my Canon, I've probably had to pull the battery and charge it 4 times...they last forever. Another reason I recommend Canon over Sony is they use the SD memory type, which is a standard vs. Sony's proprietary MemoryStick format. A lot of people argue it's faster (less loading times) than other memory types, but the most kickass thing about SD is you can now get this kind that is hinged and turns into a USB drive... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05010606sandisksdflip.asp There's no need for a stupid cable to connect from your computer to your camera or to buy a "memory card reader". You just pull the memory out of the camera, flip the hinge and plug it into a USB port on your computer. It's pure genius.
__________________
-justin 1987 300TD, 1987 300TD 2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Compared to "old school" cameras, digital cameras are practically disposable. If you have the same digital camera in 30+ years and still use it, there's going to be something wrong with you.
__________________
-justin 1987 300TD, 1987 300TD 2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Like what?
__________________
Regards Warren Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL ENTER > = (HP RPN) Not part of the in-crowd since 1952. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Hat, I personally have 3 digital cameras. I have a Canon Powershot S500 (bit older but takes awesome shots), Kodak Easy Share Z740, and then a Sony DSC t-9. They all take good shots, but hands down the Canon takes the best shot, and is the second most compact. I have the Kodak for it has a 12x optical zoom for those close up shots, however it sometimes has problems focusing in at night. The sony is there so I have something to take to the parties at college. It takes good shots, but it cannot match the zoom of my other camera, nor can it match the picture quality of my Canon.
Here are a few shots with my Canon Powershot S500.
__________________
-Justin 91 560 SEC AMG - other dogs dd 01 Honda S2000 - dogs dd 07 MB ML320 CDI - dd 16 Lexus IS250 - wifes dd it's automatic. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know, but it certainly doesn't apply to 30+ year old 35mm cameras. I've got one that works great (it's a mid 70's Pentax) and my wife has a 60's era Mamiya that still works perfectly and of course takes excellent photos.
__________________
-justin 1987 300TD, 1987 300TD 2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-TZ1K-Compact-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B000EITTLE/sr=1-5/qid=1168605874/ref=sr_1_5/102-9057132-8629740?ie=UTF8&s=photo
I would get this Panasonic, the lens is great, the zoom is even better for $230 you can't beat that. Canon, Nikons are great but cost you usually more and unless you get above the $300 -$500 range, I doubt you'll see the difference. If you're a starter you got a lot to learn about image formats and editing etc. It'll take a couple of years to be real savvy (unless you're taking digital photo classes) This lumix is a heck of a deal. Take 512mb or a 1gig of SD memory with it.
__________________
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. Number of pixels 2. Optical Zoom 3. Macro Function 4. Large lense aperture so it can take photos in low light with no flash I have a Fuji both at work and at home. The one at home is 4 years old and is obsolete in a few ways but it still takes great shots. The work one is about 2 years old and takes great shots. I can take photos with the Macro function and see stuff I can't see without a magnifying glass and I have excellent vision. Justin, Please get that Acura off of this Forum. How about some shots of the repaired 600. Do you guys still have it?
__________________
Doug 1987 300TD x 3 2005 E320CDI |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
For under $200 you are better off using your cellphone camera.
__________________
Current Benzes 1989 300TE "Alice" 1990 300CE "Sam Spade" 1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007) 1998 E320 "Orson" 2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox" Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur My Gallery Not in this weather! |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Stick with Canon, Nikon, and Olympus. These are camera companies, not just consumer electronics or computer manufacturers. Thus, they tend to have better optics. The lens is what matters most. It's hard to go wrong with one of those three brands.
I'm not a camera salesman, I just play one at work.
__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century OBK #55 1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles 2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles 2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Anything by Canon. If you can afford it, get the image stabilizing type thing. Totally worth it. IMHO.
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|