Help selecting a digital point and shoot camera

S

SAK

Joined
Sep 28, 2001
Messages
508
Yes it's true. I am a dinosaur. I don't have a digital camera yet. I love my old, huge, Minolta SLR but it is time to also obtain a digital. I have been researching and I have narrowed my list and have a few questions for those of you that have experience with point and shoots.

I am looking for a point and shooter . I will use it at work to take photos of equipment (sometimes extreme closeups) and my wife will use it to take (mostly) outdoor photos on her travels.

Things I care about:
- no noticeable shutter lag (I hate that)
- able to do macro
- I don't have a need for SLR picture quality as long as there are no major color or edge distortions.

I have 3 questions:
- How important is Image Stabilization
- How important is it to also have an optical viewfinder?
- any input on these cameras that I am looking at?:

Canon: SD1000, SD700IS, SD800IS, SD 850IS and SONY DSC-T100

Thanks,

SAK
 
I would advice you try to get one with a 12X optical zoom. I already have two with 3X optical zoom and wish I got longer zoom!
 
I have a 12x Sony H-1 [replaced by H-7 and H-9] which is great .Equivalent 35-435 mm lens which will focus to 2" !This has a stabilizer which is neccessary as is any lens above 200 mm equivalent .Mine has a viewfinder but my brothers new Panasonic has none ,he'll have to get used to it.That one is truly a "pocket " camera but with a 10x lens.Lots of choice out there check www.dpreview.com for good reviews.
 
I had a Canon SD and liked it alot. It died and I replaced it with a waterproof/shock resistant Olympus, 720SW. I liked the Canon for its view finder. The Olympus has IS but I've not used it, yet.

You might consider just going a bit larger. Gary Graley just got a Canon G7 and is loving it. My mid sized P/S is an older Olympus C5050 which I love! Shutter lag, though. Newer models are probably better.

Alot to choose from, good luck.

Win
 
Canon SDs are nice cameras, and the new ones are fairly pocketable. I have an older SD, a 300. It suffers in closeups, though...if the light is really good it's ok, otherwise not so ok.
I also have an S2 IS. The image stabilazation makes a pretty big difference while using the 10x zoom. And it can focus REALLY close asw long as the light isn;t really crappy. I REALLY like Canon as a manufacturer, here's why.
My S2 IS died after about 2 years. I could not view an image through the viewfinder, and it wasn't just the viewfinder. At that point, the camera just took solid blank images instead of pictures.
Well, I checked their website and they actually had a service notice regarding the problem. I contacted their tech support via toll free number and received a pre paid ups sticker to mail the camera to them. They fixed it FREE OF CHARGE (and it was a YEAR out of warranty when it died!) and also paid the shipping back to me. I was completely flabbergasted .... I am used to tech support for anything I buy pointing the finger elsewhere, regardless of where the problem lies.
Anyway, I have the camera back now (it was a quick turnaround) and it has been working like new.
To tell you the truth, I was hapopy enough with the S2 anyway that I was seriously considering the S3 as a replacement when the S2 died. The S3 has a slightly longer zoom, and a slightly easier to use macro feature. It also has more megapixels in a picture, but I was content with the S2 anyway. The mid to high end Nikon digital cameras focus closer than the Canons do, in fact you can touch the lens with whatever you are taking a picture of. But at that point, you can imagine that there are some lighting issues involved.
Anyway, with the Canon, I've taken halfway decent shots of the moon in the sky at night with the 10x optical zoom and the additional digital zoom, and you can get awfully close to whatever you are taking pictures of as well. And with the quality of the customer service, I highly recommend them.
 
I only have experience with two digital cameras. . . A really crappy Kodak and a pretty nice Sony. It sounds like you already know enough to stay away from any of the low end cheapies, so I won't say anything more about that.

As far as the Sony. . . I've liked every electronic gadget I've ever owned or used that was made by Sony. I forget the model # of the one I used, but it had good battery life and had a macro setting, so it did close-ups well.

An optical viewfinder might be good to have to help ease your transition from your Milolta, since that's the way you are used to framing your shots, and it can also help extend your battery life if you turn off the lcd and just use the viewfinder.
 
Speaking to the Canon camera's you reference the best of those that I handled was the 700IS

Check out the Canon S3. I just bought one last month and really like it. 12x optical zoom, image stabilization (i think a must),and easy to shoot movies with.

Wal-mart has them online for about $320. Try it out see if you like it, the nice thing out buying from Walmart is that they have a 30 day return policy with no restocking fee.

ps. the S3 shoot up to 2.2 fps in sports and portrait modes. That about as close as you can get to SLR speed.
 
SAK, a good thing to consider when you are looking at cameras is the battery system.

i borrow my brother's camera often for taking pictures, and it is a decent camera. one thing that i find undesirable about it though is the fact that it has a rechargeable battery. the kind that comes with the camera and its shaped funny and there is only one. it holds a charge for about 45 minutes i guess, roughly estimated. it sounds like a while, but on an all day vacation outing, with lots of things to photograph, i would find the battery useless fairly early on in the day. also, it needs to be plugged into a normal outlett to charge for about three hours to full charge. did i mention that there is only one? i would much prefer a standard battery system for this camera, that takes AA or AAA batteries, because these can be rechargeable to save money, or if you are out on vacation and don't want to recharge every hour during the day you can buy disposables. it is really a personal thing, but it is something to consider.
 
The SD1000 is a very nice pocket sized camera, and I prefer Canon for the really small digitals. Both my adult kids have SD600's and really like them. These small cameras have zero low light capability. Great for taking photos of equipment in strong light and the close ups are more than decent. After being spoiled by a 35mm SLR, I don't think you will be as happy with your results.

I'd really recommend going up a couple of levels. I bought a Nikon D40 SLR in December, I love the camera. The D40 SLR is very small (too small for those with large hands), and the kit lens does a decent job. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone wanting something more than a point and shoot that offers some flexibility. The battery life is fantastic. The camera is very quiet and plenty fast.
 
Olympus has a new one out for about $499.00 with an 18x zoom and IS0 to4000. Has to be the best on the market now but abit pricey!
 
Get yourself an Olympus. Yesterday I bought an Olympus Camedia C5050 for a grand total of $80, shipped Priority from a guy at "Craig's List", and I'm dying to receive it.:thumbup:.:thumbup:.
 
You'd be hard pressed to go wrong with any of the Canon SD - IS models you listed. Just be aware that Canon has done some juggling with their numbering system since the last batch of models was announced. The SD 850IS is actually the replacement for the SD 700IS, not the SD 800IS. This is particularly confusing since the 850 specs out a bit higher in some areas than the 800. In theory Canon has just not gotten around to releasing a replacement for the SD 800IS yet. The 850 has a slightly higher resolution and the lens starts and ends a little longer (35-140 vs. 28-105 in 35mm film equiv.) The SD 1000 is also not the replacement for (or above in the lineup) the SD 900 (the 900 is the top non IS model).

The Macro is pretty reasonable, but not fantastic on the Canons. The Image stabilization will definitely help you get sharper photos and help cut down on needing to use the flash in lower light. Don't forget, the IS will just help you get a sharper, longer exposure. It won't help in low light if the subject is moving.

Here are a few different review sites worth looking at:
http://www.dpreview.com/

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

http://www.dcresource.com/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/
 
I was looking at the Canon SD- 750 and SD-1000 and the Sony DSC W-80 for a moderately priced pocket camera. I ended up buying the Sony because they were offering a free 1G memory stick with it.
 
I bought a Fuji Finepix2600Z 3x zoom and love the thing. Its battery kind, which means it doesn't eat them up like candy, its easy to use and cheap. In fact I've seen them real cheap. My wife has a different camera that takes a lot more batteries, and eats them up in no time flat. Thats the biggest issue with digitals is the rate at which they kill batteries. Mine takes two double A batteries and they last for a lot of pics. You can see the close ups I've taken with of my knives on my forum. Just go to the give away thread on page two and you can see the latest ones I just took yesterday. I think its pretty impressive for a cheap easy to use brainless camera purchase.

My forum is in the knifemakers forums STR's Backyard knife works
Once you pull up a picture you can click that orange thing on the bottom right that pops up and enlarge them full size.

STR
 
The current issue of Consumer Reports is all about cameras. Everything from the cheapest point and shoot to the reallllllly high end SLR's.
 
(Sorry for not replying sooner - I have been traveling for the last week.)

Thank you all for your information so far. Some of you have mentioned stepping up to a larger or SLR camera. It is difficult, but I am trying to avoid that. For my first step into digital I am looking for something pocketable and I realize and accept the inherent limitations. I still have my film SLR.

I tried most of the Canons in my list. I liked the ergonomics and general feeling of quality. However, as you guys mentioned, macro capability was not as good as the Sony.

I tried the Sony. It had much better macro capability but the shutter lag was significantly more noticeable. Just by "feel", it seemed a bit cheaper, quality-wise.

So – I am at an impasse. My two main criteria were macro capability and low shutter lag and right now I can’t find a camera with both. At this point I would go for the Sony but I can’t accept that much shutter lag. It is possible that the lag was just due to one of the settings so I will have to research this further.

I still haven’t been able to try out an SD850-IS – I will keep looking for that. I am also going to try some of the cameras that you guys have suggested – and follow up on your links.

I have been waiting for that Consumer Reports issue to come out but I haven’t received it yet.

Thanks all.
 
I just bought a Cannon SD1000 and if you turn on continuous shooting and turn off the flash, there is no shutter delay at all. Also when it is set to the macro setting it had a bit of trouble focusing, but once it focused the pictures were great.
 
I have owned and used quite a few pocket digitals and a few D-SLR's. (In fact, I just had a new Nikon S50 delivered to me by Nikon for a special project. Great screen! The size of a small television!) However, as for build-quality, I would pick a Canon every time. I'm still using a Canon D10 (have found no urgent reason to upgrade) and a Canon SD-400 for candids. I get to keep the Nikon, but I know I'll stick with the SD-400 as my "carry-along" - it just feels right in the hand.

Yes, proprietary batteries are a PITA, but try finding a brand-name digital camera that does NOT use them. Last one I can remember was that old Nikon workhorse - the Nikon Coolpix 990. Bought one of those simply BECAUSE it used AA's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top