-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Good digital camera under $200, preferably under $100?
- Thread starter skcusloa
- Start date
Cougar Allen
Buccaneer (ret.)
- Joined
- Oct 9, 1998
- Messages
- 75,847
There are digital cameras under $100 that are usable for some purposes. I have one I paid only $20 for that is fairly sharp in the middle of the picture and blurry around the edges, which can be an interesting effect for some subjects.... What do you want to take pictures of? If you want to take pictures of small things like knives and post them, a cheap fixed-focus camera won't work; you need a camera that focuses.
The Canon A75 is running around $200 or less now. That's a good general-purpose camera, with a 3x zoom lens and a good automatic program that can be overridden and controlled manually when you need to.
The Canon A75 is running around $200 or less now. That's a good general-purpose camera, with a 3x zoom lens and a good automatic program that can be overridden and controlled manually when you need to.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 63
I was thisclose to buying a Canon A300 camera and I455 printer bundle today.
It's 99.99 at j and r . com, how can you go wrong? a camera and printer for under $100. (mainly because it uses my CF cards and AA nimhs, no new memory needed)
the camera is a few yrs old and only 3mp but got a good review on steve's digicam. the printer is a low end model but looks good.
The camera I have now is a HP C618.
decided to buy a laser printer instead.
It's 99.99 at j and r . com, how can you go wrong? a camera and printer for under $100. (mainly because it uses my CF cards and AA nimhs, no new memory needed)
the camera is a few yrs old and only 3mp but got a good review on steve's digicam. the printer is a low end model but looks good.
The camera I have now is a HP C618.
decided to buy a laser printer instead.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2001
- Messages
- 2,420
I'm looking to replace my first digital camera (2001) which I am so slow to do because I have loved this camera! It's a fuji finepix 1400, which is so obsolete, you can't even find them on ebay anymore. But there are many more recent finepix products and that's probably the direction I'm going.
I bought this camera used on ebay in Mar of 2001 for about $140. I have driven off with this camera on the roof of my car (it fell to the street), and have dropped it from the height of my face to the sidewalk below. It never broke, and it's never failed me yet. Usually the battery door just flew open and my batteries went everywhere. Only lately has it finally started to show it's age..the lens cover doesn't stay closed anymore, (essential hardware in a digital cam in my book, I am HARD on stuff, obviously) and it seems to be sucking battery life pretty hard. (Rechargeable batteries are essential too)
I've taken a lot of really nice pictures with it.
...and the only thing I've ever wished it had was an external flash. I've snuck that camera into some great concerts, but never got a really good picture, even from the pit. (what? I'm 43 and not supposed to be in the pit? No one told me...)
Anyway, there has been some good advice here, but I can tell you that this camera has been not only a "learning, beat the heck out of it" digital camera, but has turned out to be a serious tool. It's 1.3 megapixel and 3X optical zoom is just enough for happy snaps and good ebay pics, without too many bells and whistles that just get in the way. It's USB connection downloads pictures fast and super easy (with generic disk downloading software, the actual fuji software has a cartoon-y interface that I just can't deal with)
My poor camera has been through the wringer and I'm still using it everyday. I would highly recommend any of fuji's low-tech low-end models for any newish user.
I will be sad to see it go, but it's time for me to trade up!
I bought this camera used on ebay in Mar of 2001 for about $140. I have driven off with this camera on the roof of my car (it fell to the street), and have dropped it from the height of my face to the sidewalk below. It never broke, and it's never failed me yet. Usually the battery door just flew open and my batteries went everywhere. Only lately has it finally started to show it's age..the lens cover doesn't stay closed anymore, (essential hardware in a digital cam in my book, I am HARD on stuff, obviously) and it seems to be sucking battery life pretty hard. (Rechargeable batteries are essential too)
I've taken a lot of really nice pictures with it.
...and the only thing I've ever wished it had was an external flash. I've snuck that camera into some great concerts, but never got a really good picture, even from the pit. (what? I'm 43 and not supposed to be in the pit? No one told me...)
Anyway, there has been some good advice here, but I can tell you that this camera has been not only a "learning, beat the heck out of it" digital camera, but has turned out to be a serious tool. It's 1.3 megapixel and 3X optical zoom is just enough for happy snaps and good ebay pics, without too many bells and whistles that just get in the way. It's USB connection downloads pictures fast and super easy (with generic disk downloading software, the actual fuji software has a cartoon-y interface that I just can't deal with)
My poor camera has been through the wringer and I'm still using it everyday. I would highly recommend any of fuji's low-tech low-end models for any newish user.
I will be sad to see it go, but it's time for me to trade up!
bladefixation2
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,391
Go for a better make over a cheaper one, even if it means you have to get a lower resolution camera.
You will get better pictures from a 3 or 4 megapixel canon or nikon than a higher megapixel 'no name' because the lens in the canon or nikon will be so much better. The lens quality makes a much larger difference to picture quality than most people think.
I have a low end canon digital camera (Powershot A300) the pictures are pretty good from it. The main feature lacking from the camera is an optical zoom.
If I had to guess why you arent getting the results you are looking for with concert photography I would say
1. The flash may not be powerful enough to reach the stage because its a compact camera. You could try setting a higher ISO/ ASA setting if you havent already tried that. An ISO/ASA setting of 400 will mean lower shutter speeds and/ or greater flash range than a setting of 100.
2. You may have it set to the wrong picture type. eg if you set it to night mode it will try to set a long enough exposure to show the background as well as the subject, leaving the whole picture blurry because everything is moving quickly. Experiment and try setting it to sports mode. Alternatively get a film camera and put some Kodak TMAX 3200 ASA black and white film in for some unique grainy B&W photos! (be careful here a lot of cheap compact film cameras wont be able to handle this film...)
3. Concerts are notoriously difficult to photgraph even for pro photographers. The light is low and everything is moving quickly yet you need to try and capture the mood not just blast everything with a massive amount of flash. Dont feel so bad! the picture you posted is quite good especially when you take into account you were a distance from the stage and the lighting is so bad and youre using a compact camera.
You will get better pictures from a 3 or 4 megapixel canon or nikon than a higher megapixel 'no name' because the lens in the canon or nikon will be so much better. The lens quality makes a much larger difference to picture quality than most people think.
I have a low end canon digital camera (Powershot A300) the pictures are pretty good from it. The main feature lacking from the camera is an optical zoom.
If I had to guess why you arent getting the results you are looking for with concert photography I would say
1. The flash may not be powerful enough to reach the stage because its a compact camera. You could try setting a higher ISO/ ASA setting if you havent already tried that. An ISO/ASA setting of 400 will mean lower shutter speeds and/ or greater flash range than a setting of 100.
2. You may have it set to the wrong picture type. eg if you set it to night mode it will try to set a long enough exposure to show the background as well as the subject, leaving the whole picture blurry because everything is moving quickly. Experiment and try setting it to sports mode. Alternatively get a film camera and put some Kodak TMAX 3200 ASA black and white film in for some unique grainy B&W photos! (be careful here a lot of cheap compact film cameras wont be able to handle this film...)
3. Concerts are notoriously difficult to photgraph even for pro photographers. The light is low and everything is moving quickly yet you need to try and capture the mood not just blast everything with a massive amount of flash. Dont feel so bad! the picture you posted is quite good especially when you take into account you were a distance from the stage and the lighting is so bad and youre using a compact camera.
We just upgraded to a 8meg Nikkon coolpix camera and its ok, I mean it takes alittle more skill to use it to get great pictures and sometimes we just dont have that time. its wonderful on a tripod and as most cameras it loves taking pictures out in the sunlight.
However nine times out of ten we go back to our old camera a 2 meg Canon ELPH powershot S200. This camera owns. its super easy to work, fits in a pocket or bag easily and the pictures it takes come out just as good as the 8 meg sometimes. I think the last ELPH they made was 4 meg if im not mistaken and is in the same ALL metal casing. if you can spend 250 to 350 look into the canon ELPH you wont be sorry. It also takes very good close ups. It has many many features that higher end cameras do. We dont zoom much, we just move closer hehe but it has a optical and digital zoom, beware digital zooms stink and we never ever use it.Unless you are making poster sized shots 2 megs is all you need IMO. Put a 256 card into it and you can take hundreds and hundreds of pictures at its best settings. We have dropped this camera a few times and it keeps right on going. its only downfall is it needs to use the canon battery supplied,no regular batteries but it last a decent amount of time. And thye may have upgraded this not sure, our ELPH is 4 years old now and our next camera will be a upgraded version of it.
Panasonic also has some inexpensive 2 to 4 meg cameras that use a Leica lens. Never liked the quality of there camera cases but cant go wrong with Leica and a good mem card.
http://www.cambridgeworld.com/Canon_Cameras_Digital/canon_powershot_s200_elph.htm
However nine times out of ten we go back to our old camera a 2 meg Canon ELPH powershot S200. This camera owns. its super easy to work, fits in a pocket or bag easily and the pictures it takes come out just as good as the 8 meg sometimes. I think the last ELPH they made was 4 meg if im not mistaken and is in the same ALL metal casing. if you can spend 250 to 350 look into the canon ELPH you wont be sorry. It also takes very good close ups. It has many many features that higher end cameras do. We dont zoom much, we just move closer hehe but it has a optical and digital zoom, beware digital zooms stink and we never ever use it.Unless you are making poster sized shots 2 megs is all you need IMO. Put a 256 card into it and you can take hundreds and hundreds of pictures at its best settings. We have dropped this camera a few times and it keeps right on going. its only downfall is it needs to use the canon battery supplied,no regular batteries but it last a decent amount of time. And thye may have upgraded this not sure, our ELPH is 4 years old now and our next camera will be a upgraded version of it.
Panasonic also has some inexpensive 2 to 4 meg cameras that use a Leica lens. Never liked the quality of there camera cases but cant go wrong with Leica and a good mem card.
http://www.cambridgeworld.com/Canon_Cameras_Digital/canon_powershot_s200_elph.htm
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 63
To be honest the only digicams under $100 are brands one never heard of like DXG or something, some old Agfa's, vivitar's and some Kodak's.
That's why the Canon A300 is such a deal, rarely will you find a name brand digicam for under $100. It doesn't have an optical zoom but as a point and shoot, it's more than good enough.
Indoor concert photography is difficult. I went to a few clubs with a photo teacher from ICP where they allowed no flash photography. Seeing the displays on the SLR's in the dark is not easy. On the plus side, it's a good way to meet girls. They come up and seem very interested along with asking for a copy of the photo, so they usually give you their number.
That's why the Canon A300 is such a deal, rarely will you find a name brand digicam for under $100. It doesn't have an optical zoom but as a point and shoot, it's more than good enough.
Indoor concert photography is difficult. I went to a few clubs with a photo teacher from ICP where they allowed no flash photography. Seeing the displays on the SLR's in the dark is not easy. On the plus side, it's a good way to meet girls. They come up and seem very interested along with asking for a copy of the photo, so they usually give you their number.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,690
skcusloa said:
YOU DON'T WANT AUTOFOCUS? I don't think you can get a digicam without autofocus nowadays (not including DSLR's). Fixed focus probably but none with manual focus only. Although a lot of the digicams have a function for manual focus. But you will still get autofocus included for free
.Anyway, the advice given has been good so far. Get a known brand. You cannot go wrong with a Canon, Nikon or Olympus.
Like Cougar Allen said up there, the A75 has proven itself to be one of the best value cameras out there. Well, they've upgraded it already but if you can still get an A75 it'll probably be at a very good price.
I've been thinking of actually going back to film lately. I've found that i don't get any prints anymore 'cos i'm too lazy to edit the pictures. With the sizes that i want for the pictures usually i have to crop some of the pictures so i don't get those white lines around the side. However, i do have to admit that i take more pictures with the digital.
glockman99
RIP Dann, you were a good guy.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2000
- Messages
- 21,269
I got that same package at the same price last year, and although they still both sit in the original box in my closet, it's still a great deal and a nice little digital camera. For me, I just find my old Sony Mavica FD-88 easier to use, since it takes discs.TiberiusBkirk said: