• Preorders are LIVE for the 2024 BladeForums Traditional Knife

    Traditional Knife Information Thread - make sure you go in there and read up.

    Requirements: Be a Gold or higher member or have been a member of the forums since 6/2023 with at least 100 posts in the Traditional Forum. Preorder is for people who live in the continental US only, international orders will be separate.

    Delivery expected in Q4 2024, hopefully before the holidays.

    User Name
    Serial number request

Durable,Inexpensive, Reasonable Quality, Point and Shoot Camera? ? ?

Marion David Poff

Marion David Poff

Joined
Oct 8, 1998
Messages
5,403
Ok,

I am looking for a point and shoot camera.

I am hard on things... So, I want durability.

If I was willing to throw money at it, I would get something really nice... So, I want inexpensive.

But, I also want an efficient amount of quality.

What do you all think?
 
I used to be a little serious about photography, when it was chemicals and paper and printers, and now I don't do it at all because everything is digital and I'm a luddite.

But if you are looking for cheap, reasonable quality point and shoot i.e. no focus, no zoom, get the disposable ones that you send the whole camera to get developed. The ones with the flash are a little more expensive but much more flexible.

One of my best pictures ever was taken with one of those. Its of my rhodesian ridgeback standing in the window of my old barn. It even blew up to 8X10 with reasonable quality.
 
Marion David Poff said:
Well,

Maybe you could compare the two, for my needs. And recommend as appropriate....

: )
Click to expand...


If you want a "real" camera, digital is probably the way to go. You have a lot of flexibility, you can photoshop, you can print your own pictures, etc. The downside is to get pictures of a quality equal to film you can't just buy the cheapest one you can find. I can't help you out on the models, etc. Probably can get a good one for a couple of hundred bucks.

For cheap, point and shoot, I mean 10-15 bucks each the disposables are the way to go. Keep in mind though if you take a lot of pictures, the digital is a lot cheaper in the long run.
 
I feel digital is the way to go, I still have three good old reflex 35mm film cameras including one that needs no battery but don´t used them any more, they now feel heavy and clumsy and who wants to wait for film to be developed, get the pictures and not be able to fix colors, contrast, red eyes, etc.

On digitals:

I suggest checking reviews over here:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

A camera without a zoom lens and with fixed focus will cost a lot less than one with an optical zoom, a camera with 2 Megapixel resolution will cost a lot less than one with 5 Megapixels. I suggest you learn about this stuff (site above should help on this) and decide whether you want a zoom lens or not and what resolution you want.

I can often find digital cameras on sale at local stores, sometimes at 50% or more discount, I think if you look around you may find something you may like.

As a brand I´m partial to Canon (though many others are good) from use and reviews and comments from the people who buy them for the place where I work. I´m currently using a Kodak 5 Megapixel with 3X lens that I found on sale, great camera though I´ve heard it´s a bit on the fragile side (much use of plastic parts in the mechanism).

On film cameras:

Also lots of variety and prices, many good ones, I do prefer 35 mm over any other format, again you have to decide whether you want a zoom lens or not and if you can live with fixed focus, also check for local sales, many good brands here.

If you go digital as I suggest, you may also want to get some (free) software, I´m currently using PhotoFiltre, you can check this and others over here:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/im...oedw.htm?terms=free+image+editors+for+windows

The camera may come with some software mostly for viewing and simple editing, but there are some great freeware programs for this too, I like Irfanview and FastStone, which can be found here:

http://www.download.com/IrfanView/3000-2192_4-10335353.html?tag=lst-0-1

http://www.download.com/FastStone-Image-Viewer/3000-2192_4-10348453.html?tag=lst-0-2
 
Yeah, I guess I have to agree... for the ultimate in "I don't care if it gets banged up", you can't beat the disposable P&S film cameras. I took three of them with me on a trip to Disneyworld, and I didn't fret a bit about handing the camera to strangers to take shots of me with my girlfriend, or worry about it being banged around in my backpack. I would have probably not done that with my Nikon.

Comparing and contrasting Digital and Film, and assuming that you're not going high-end on either..

*Either will have some level of zoom capability.
*Film will give better ability to "blow up" a shot to larger sizes.
*Digital gives instant gratification, assuming you have a computer.
*At $7.50 a roll for film and developing, you'll spend quite a bit per picture you take. With a digital, you might have to spend a little more for a good sized memory card up front, but every picture you take lowers your "price per click".
*With film, you have to change rolls every 24 or 36 frames. With a digital, you are only limited by the size of your card and/or batteries. My dad has a 512MB card (less than $60 online) for his Fuji, and I've taken over 250 shots with it (including many with flash) without running out of power or space on the card. This makes a HUGE difference if you're walking through a museum, zoo, or similar. I would have had to spend about $30 on film and $45 on developing for those shots, and had to fiddle with the camera much more had it not been digital.
*Many digitals are able to take short movies.
*One of the dirty secrets of photography is that you tend get maybe one really nice picture per about 20 that you take. (This is assuming you're going for "nice" pictures, and not just documenting sailboat rigging or something.) With film, you pay for the other 19 crappy photos, in addition to the 1 you want to keep.
*I can fit 700 3-Megapixel digital photos on a single CD, and make as many copies as I want to distribute to family or friends for aprox 25 cents per disk.
*With the low "price per click" of digital, you can document things you wouldn't necessarily take film shots of... like disassembling an engine step-by-step. I've done some sailboat rigging for a friend, and I took a digital camera up the mast with me when I went up. I took quite a few pictures from many different angles of the masthead and associated rigging. When I got home, I burned a CD for my friend containing all the shots I had taken, which gives him documentation of his masthead. This makes it MUCH easier for him to buy replacement rigging parts and to plan which pieces he wants to replace next. I probably wouldn't have done that with film, and it definitely would have cost more.


A good place to research your Digital camera options is www.dpreview.com
 
Go digital and get one of the little Sonys. They're very well-built, metal body, etc. They've got a self-closing lense cover that you can't loose or forget. Very nice. In automatic mode, they are all but point-and-shoot.
 
i bought a canon A75 that takes brilliant pictures. the only bad thing about this camera is its slow shutter speed. if your looking to take action shots you would be better served with a film camera or the newer but more expensive slr digital cameras.
 
hask said:
...the only bad thing about this camera is its slow shutter speed...
Click to expand...
I believe the Canon A75 is among the best in its price range, my brother has one. You can use the fast shutter setting for point and shoot action pictures, or the slow shutter setting for long depth of field, or you can use shutter priority for fast or slow shutter speed as you may wish, also aperture priority or full manual exposure, and many other options, which you may ignore if you don´t want to learn all that stuff or learn and take full advantage of them, it is a very versatile camera.

One problem with digital cameras in action shots is that there is a lag between the time you press the shutter button and the time the picture is actually captured, technology is improving on this and some cameras do a decent job getting around the problem by using cache memory and not focusing during the actual shot but keep the lens as it was before pressing the shutter button (the way film cameras do it), the Canon A75 does a good job for a digital camera on this IMHO.
 
If you want inexpensive but high quality, take a look at the Yashica T4 and T5. It's a 35mm film p&s with a 35mm prime lens (no zoom). It's got a fast (for p&s) f/3.5 maximum aperature and a Carl Zeiss lens with some nice coatings on it. It's one that most pro photographers keep handy in addition to their multi-thousand dollar SLR rigs. Under $200, and your pics will be sharp enough to blow up however big you want, unlike the sub-$200 digitals. Most labs will process a roll for a couple of bucks and burn you a CD for a few more. It's prints that are expensive. The Nikon 35ti and the Contax T2 are a couple of others in this category of high quality p&s cameras, but they're considerably more money, and I'm not convinced that they're much if any better quality.
 
I just picked up a Canon A75 on sale for $199 at Staples. That included a 132 MB memory card in addition to the 32 MB card supplied with the camera. So far I have only putzed around with it for a few minutes but I am very heartened to hear the good reviews here. Looks like I made a good choice! :)
 
Disposable with flash. Weigh next to nothing; slip into your pocket; no heartache if broken, lost or stolen. If you are travelling to a tourist destination, no need to take a camera 'cos they'll sell them there!

Andrew.
 
How about the H/P's. They have a 3.2 mp for about 175$. I think they have 3X zoom. Anybody have experience with these? They are very thin and easily carried. I was thinking about getting one to backup my Kodak 4.0mp.
Mike Morris
 
I was torn between a little beater camera that I could literally take anywhere, and one with better handling and more features. I gave in on the features, and got a Nikon Coolpix 3200, which I really like. Top of my list for durability and ease of carry, though, was the digital version of the Canon ELPH. I had a Canon APS ELPH for years. Took it everywhere, camping, hiking, boating. Half the finish was worn off, but it still functioned perfectly. Gave it to one of my buddies when I got my Nikon. The digital is even more compact, and stouter.
 
The canon mentioned above would be a very nice entry to digital. I have a 2mp version on that same camera and really enjoy it. That said if you want lower cost and are considering film you may consider an Olympus stylus. The non zoom model has a fast lens speed of F2.8 and also offers the option of spot metering. There is a zoom model as well but it sacrafices some of the speed of the other model. Last time I heard (a year or more ago) the non zoom stylus was available in the range of $75. Great proce for a very respected camera that is weatherproof and in a very compact package.

One of the point and shoot cameras mentioned above with actual focus will run circles around the disposable cameras with fixed focus and crap lenses and you will have paid for the good point and shoot after going through a dozen or so of the disposables.
 
I've shot with Olympus cameras forever, Old and newer SLRs and a bunch of the point and shoots(been in the business for 15 years, borrowed from the shop :D)
They make really good digital also for pretty reasonable prices, generally speaking they are pretty durable and water resistant. My wife is, shall we say a little careless and it's still alive, so thats a recomendation right there. Good luck findiong something that worksd for you.
Jon
 
Eric1115 said:
If you want inexpensive but high quality, take a look at the Yashica T4 and T5. It's a 35mm film p&s with a 35mm prime lens (no zoom). It's got a fast (for p&s) f/3.5 maximum aperature and a Carl Zeiss lens with some nice coatings on it. It's one that most pro photographers keep handy in addition to their multi-thousand dollar SLR rigs. Under $200, and your pics will be sharp enough to blow up however big you want, unlike the sub-$200 digitals. Most labs will process a roll for a couple of bucks and burn you a CD for a few more. It's prints that are expensive. The Nikon 35ti and the Contax T2 are a couple of others in this category of high quality p&s cameras, but they're considerably more money, and I'm not convinced that they're much if any better quality.
Click to expand...

Right on the money. I advised my sister to get a T4 (I'm the family photography nut) and now my mom wants one. The quality/price ratio blows digital out of the water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top