Best 8 Meg Digital Camera

Nuke_Spook

Nuke_Spook

Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
582
My teenage daughter is looking for a good Point & Shoot 8 Meg Digital Camera for around $175 give or take. Any suggestions?

Thanks,
 
You might try a Canon A570IS. They're a real steal right now. 7.2 MP is plenty good enough for a P&S. She might balk at it if she wants one of the little slim jobbies, though.
 
Nuke_Spook said:
My teenage daughter is looking for a good Point & Shoot 8 Meg Digital Camera for around $175 give or take. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why it has to be 8Mp?

Anything above about 6Mp will give sterling quality 10x8 prints -
and for each additional Mp the gains are diminishing.

If she wants to do photography with a bit more control then the new Canon A590-IS is probably the best choice - it is actually 8Mp and can be found for $150 including shipping from reputable vendors - but it is a little bulky - not very slim/pocketable.

For slimmer/sleeker cameras -
The 7Mp Sony W80 is a good choice, if you can still find it - it is being discontinued. (Sony W80 Review) it is being replaced by the Sony W120

Fuji Z5fd is only 6Mp - but it uses the SuperCCD that gives very credible results even at ISO800 - much better than most other p&s, and can be found for as little as $116 shipped and it comes in various colors. (Review - for summary just read the output quality section bottom of this page) (The Z100fd is the 8Mp version - BUT it does NOT use SuperCCD and its results are just not as good at high ISOs)

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
 
More money but Olympus has 10m submersible cameras that are also shock resistant. 7 or 10 meg I believe. I have the 7 meg version. It takes very nice shots. I have snorkeled with it and dropped it -- no problems. Battery life sucks a little but I keep a charged spare handy.
 
I got a Canon S80
8MP
It's like 300 + bucks though :(
I love it :thumbup:
I am gonna get a 12MP Canon in a few months.....
 
When we looked for one, we got the following advise. ''If your going to buy a camera, buy it from a camera maker." We bought a Canon S80 and like it. Don't think you'll find one that cheap, but I think we got good advise.
 
Trent Rock said:
I got a Canon S80
8MP
It's like 300 + bucks though
Click to expand...

Bernoulli said:
We bought a Canon S80 and like it. Don't think you'll find one that cheap
Click to expand...

I do third the Canon S80 - I actually use the Canon S80 for the majority of my shots - but it is not slim/sleek - although it is more compact than the Canon A590IS (or A570IS). However it's been discontinued for over a year now - hard to find, and even then it's over $300 for a used one.....

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
 
Actually, slim in not an issue. She is not looking for a "tourist / girlie" camera but one that she can actually do some editing of the photos. According to her sources 8 mp is a good place to start with editing software. She is planning on majoring in journalism and wants to get her feet wet with an affordable camera before she decides to move up in the future.

Thanks for all advice
 
Nuke_Spook said:
Actually, slim in not an issue. She is not looking for a "tourist / girlie" camera but one that she can actually do some editing of the photos. According to her sources 8 mp is a good place to start with editing software. She is planning on majoring in journalism and wants to get her feet wet with an affordable camera before she decides to move up in the future.
Click to expand...

Cool! then the Canon PowerShot A590-IS seems like just the ticket -
canona590isot7.jpg


it is 8Mp and the replacement for the highly regarded A570-IS (7Mp).
It has full manual control as well as the semi-manual(/auto) of shutter priority (Tv) and aperture priority (Av).
An all important Optical viewfinder for quick use and in very bright or dark conditions, and a pretty nice 2.5" LCD monitor for more accurate framing (like a poor person's dSLR)

Review of Canon A590-IS at dcResource

Using PriceGrabber.com it can be had for $150 including shipping from reputable vendors like Beach Camera, BuyDig etc.

Also worth considering is the Canon A720-IS which has a zoom lens with more at the telephoto end (to ~210mm equiv compared to the ~140mm for the A590-IS)

Review of Canon A720-IS at dcResource

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
 
Another vote for Canon

I havent used the A590 but over the past few years I've owned a couple of Powershots including one of the early powershot 'A' series, the Powershot S80, an IXUS 960 (called the ELPH SD950 in the US), and EOS 350D (called the Rebel in the US) and an EOS 40D, they have all been excellent cameras with very good image quality.

The IXUS (ELPH?) range dont offer full manual control (ie control over aperture and shutter speed) so they would be worth keeping clear of if the objective is to learn more about the fundamentals of photography.
 
Nuke_Spook said:
Actually, slim in not an issue. She is not looking for a "tourist / girlie" camera but one that she can actually do some editing of the photos. According to her sources 8 mp is a good place to start with editing software. She is planning on majoring in journalism and wants to get her feet wet with an affordable camera before she decides to move up in the future.

Thanks for all advice
Click to expand...


Concur with Canon A590IS as mentioned by others. Available for around $150. You will need to factor some of your budget on an SD card of at least 1GB and some high quality rechargeable AA NIMH batteries.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that a 3.2 meg was equal to a 35mm camera? I was also told that it was the zoom that was more important. You want to get at least a 6-10 zoom?
 
Hillbilly.223 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that a 3.2 meg was equal to a 35mm camera? I was also told that it was the zoom that was more important. You want to get at least a 6-10 zoom?
Click to expand...

This really depends on the largest envisaged print size.

There was a lot of debate to where/when digital would replace film.

This has (obviously) already taken place a few years ago.

Strictly on resolution alone, film can resolve up to about 100lp/mm - (line-pairs per mm) so it takes two rows of pixels to resolve a line-pair - so 35mm film at 36mmx24mm would need (36x100x2) x (24x100x2) pixels = 34.6Mp to equal the resolving power of film - this is obviously pretty over the top.

Most good film/lens combination probably can only do about 50lp/mm - so that's a factor of 4 on the above figure = 8.64Mp.

That's why there was a rush to digital once dSLR got to 6Mp - and with the first Canon Digital Rebel (6Mp) at under $1K - the dSLR started to make in roads in the consumer market too.

Coming back to the original question 3Mp will allow 10x8 prints at about 200ppi/dpi - which at one time was held as the criteria for print quality on inkjet printers.

This was derived when Mp were still low - but the long held criteria for quality was 300dpi for scanning and this kind of works out to 300ppi/dpi for prints too - there is now a trend back to using 300ppi/dpi as a print quality criteria
- so strictly speaking 3Mp only gives a 5"x7" print at 300dpi.

6Mp dSLR (3:2 aspect ratio) can just give a 10"x6.7" at 300ppi/dpi whereas an 8.64Mp will give 12"x8" at 300ppi/dpi.
Anyway, 6Mp is close enough that it would be hard to tell the difference.

There is also a point of diminishing returns with higher pixel count.

Not only does noise increase with higher number of pixels crammed into the same size chip (ie: smaller photo sites = lower signal/noise ratio)

Most people would only closely scrutinize a handheld print -
that is 10"x8" or smaller (eg: nose to paper).
Any larger print would get proportionally more distant viewing.

So a contention is that if the largest handheld print can pass close scrutiny - then progressive enlargements with the same pixel count would also look good at the proportionally longer viewing distances.

So for most people 6-8Mp is close enough to replacing 35mm film.

For the more critical usage about 2-3x the Mp would be "better" for bigger enlargments -

This is quoted from Popular Photography -

"In our tests in the Pop Photo Lab, the 16.7MP 1Ds Mark II exceeded the image quality of ISO 100 film in most categories, including color accuracy and low noise levels at high ISOs. But film still had the resolution advantage at 3000 lines (tested), compared with 2600 lines on the 1Ds Mark II."

Note: in "digital" resolution one line is half of one line-pair -
the 3000lines is on the shorter dimension (ie: the 24mm of the 35mm frame) 3000lines = 1500 line-pairs over 24mm make that a resolution of 62.5 lp/mm.

However if the prints are 10x8 then there would be very little difference (if any between) a 6Mp and 35mm film or an 16-21Mp everything else being equal.

And the same can be said for 6x4 prints -
a 2Mp digicam can achieve 300ppi/dpi for this size, so even a 2Mp image with everything else being equal would probably "match" a 6x4 print taken on 35mm film or a 16-21Mp $multi-K dSLR........

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
 
Last edited:
canon g9 if she plans on using photoshop or such

that camera has the ability to shoot in a raw format

"The PowerShot G9's RAW mode lets you shoot images without JPEG compression. It gives you clearer images and complete creative control in editing. RAW images are transferred directly to the computer where they can then be edited using image adjustment software or a processing application to adjust your images as you please. The camera can also be set to allow the simultaneous recording of both RAW and JPEG images while shooting."
 
My digital camera seems to shoot "slow" if that makes any sense. Somebody told me I need a camera with a faster "refresh" speed. What is that?

I like candids and by the time I snap a digital, I got nothing.

I used to shoot a lot of pictures (did all my own black and white developing and printing) so I used to think I knew a bit about cameras and if you used the right film, you could shoot with a very fast shutter.
 
Shann said:
My digital camera seems to shoot "slow" if that makes any sense. Somebody told me I need a camera with a faster "refresh" speed. What is that?
I like candids and by the time I snap a digital, I got nothing.
I used to shoot a lot of pictures (did all my own black and white developing and printing) so I used to think I knew a bit about cameras and if you used the right film, you could shoot with a very fast shutter.
Click to expand...


I think you may be talking about two different things.

1) response time - how quickly a camera actually takes/snaps the picture
2) shutter speed -how fast the shutter speed/time - which allows the camera to "freeze' motion (or at the other extreme - prevent blur due to camera shake or subject motion)

I think you may be mainly talking about (1) - response time - the time between pressing the shutter button and the camera actually capturing the image.

There is an inevitable delay between pressing the shutter button and capturing the image - since the digicam has to focus the lens and adjust for the exposure then trip the shutter (price for automation). Digicams have improved quite a bit from the earlier days when one would press the shutter button and wait for the mailman to deliver a written notice for the shutter to trip :p

However even with improvements the total time is still mostly in the ballpark of about 1/2 second - exactly as you say you press the shutter button and completely missed the action you saw.

Even with $multi-K dSLRs there is a delay - both Popular Photography (PopPhoto.com) and imaging-resource.com report on the focus/shutter delay - and these are on average still about 1/4-1/2 sec - still too slow to truly capture candid moments.

A reaction time of about <0.1sec is really needed.

How does one achieve that on a humble p&s digicam?

Pre-Focus - this is partially depressing the shutter button to hold the focus (and other settings) then wait for the moment and press the shutter rest of the way - then the lag is only about 0.1sec - faster than most of us can react.

If by chance you were talking about (2) faster shutter speeds - for the same lighting conditions - use a higher ISO sensitivity (like using a faster film) and the shutter speed will be higher. Or if using a camera with manual or aperture and shutter priority - set for the widest aperture (lowest number) and the shutter speed will the highest for the conditions and the lens used.

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
 
=Voodoo= said:
canon g9 if she plans on using photoshop or such
that camera has the ability to shoot in a raw format
Click to expand...

RAW is a good thought - BUT the original poster's budget was $175 or there abouts -

The Canon PowerShot G9 is ~$450 shipped.

At that price one should really consider a dSLR -
Pentax K100D Super or Nikon D40 are both about ~$450 with kit lens - both will do RAW and probably are a lot more versatile in the longer run. Although they are "only" 6Mp........

FWIW - I prefer the Pentax K100D (Super) because of the built-in image stabilization/shake reduction system. Image quality are about neck-and-neck which is "excellent" for a 6Mp dSLR.

(Although I obviously have RAW on my camera(s) I don't use it - I just use regular JPG - as RAW requires extra processing to even get a viewable image)

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top