Shopping for a DIGITAL CAMERA. (1 Viewer)

[Darren Mortensen]

I would appreciate some help with a digital camera purchase. I really don't know good from bad about these cameras. I don't need a "loaded" model. Just something decent, affordable and reliable. Can this be had for under $200.00 new?

I am tired of expensive ADVANCE cartridge film and developing. My HT will be done soon, so I want a nice camera to photograph it with, as well as travel pics and possible EBAY use.

Thank you in advance,

 

[Scott Dautel]

Darren:
I made the jump to digital about a year ago (from APS) and could never go back. My 1st digital camera was a Kodak DX3600 (2.1 MP). To my horror, I had an "accident" with this one (slipped out of my hands at an amusement park) and was forced to find a replacement last month. Since I was so pleased with the performance of Kodak digital cameras, I found a great deal on a DX3900 refirb (3.1 MP). I just looked and the deal is still running. The camera is $220. plus they had a $15 digital coupon (Code: LSC851, expires 1-Nov-02). delivered cost to me was like $215. In addition to the step-up to 3.1 MP, the 3900 also has exposure controls for speed, aperture, etc. (it also looks sleeker) Please be aware that the DX3900 is a discontinued model, but the replacement runs around $350.
Kodak DX3900 --> Link Removed
Not the optional docking station (~$75) is not included
An alternative is the Kodak DX3700 (3.1 MP), a refirb can be had for $160 right now here. Major differences include NO Optical zoom and no exposure controls ... still a great deal for a point & shoot.
Kodak DX3700 -->
You know, there are so many of these refirbs out there it makes me wonder if theryre not really refirbs at all, but rather Kodak's way of unloading older unmoved inventory.

 

[Philip_G]

I would look at the nikons, the coolpix 775 can probably be had for under or around $200 and it's a great little camera.

 

[BarryR]

Check Canon!!!

 

[Shawn C]

Oh, this is a dangerous thread. You are going to get 100 opinions on 100 different cameras. I guess the truth is, there really aren't any BAD digital cameras. You just gotta read some reviews and decide for yourself.
http://www.dpreview.com
My own personal opinion is that you can't bet Kodak for entry level cameras. They are easy to use and take great pictures. I am still using my DC280 (which is the same internally as the 3600 was) and it takes REALLY nice pictures.
If I had some extra cashola, I'd move up into the Prosumer cameras like the Nikon Coolpix 5700 or the Minolta DImage 7i

 

[Cam S]

I would give the Canon cameras a serious lookover. I own a Canon S30 right now, but will be taking it back to upgrade to a G2 or G3. The S30 is great, and has incredible picture quality, not to mention it is incredibley small for having such a large amount of options. Canon makes other lower priced models like the A20/A40, just go over to www.DPreview.com and look at some reviews.

 

[JohnRice]

??? NO?

 

[Adam Bluhm]

Check out Link Removed for excellent reviews. I purchased a Canon Powershot A40 about a half year ago and I love it. Good for the money.
I'd recommend Nikon, but they're more than you're willing to spend.
By the way, get NiMH rechargeables! They last much longer than alkalines and they're nice on the wallet!

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Kodaks have the problem of requiring an extra-cost docking station to attach to your PC. Fuji had the best deal when I was shopping for my nephew about 6 months ago. $200 on-line gets you a nice complete outfit with cable and software.

 

[Philip_G]

there really aren't any BAD digital cameras.

never owned an HP camera have you?

 

[Thomas Newton]

I am tired of expensive ADVANCE cartridge film and developing.

If you think film developing is expensive, wait until you see the cost of printing out digital photos (either at home or at a commercial place). Then factor in equipment costs (digital cameras often cost 2x or 3x as much as film cameras) for a real sticker shock.

A digital camera might save you money if you take a lot of photos and print out only a few (saving the rest to CD-Rs, for video display). Otherwise, the reason for getting one has nothing to do with saving money -- and everything to do with instant feedback + ease of getting your photos into a computer.

 

[Craig Robertson]

like Adam said, check out Link Removed. if you click on the "buyers guide" link, it asks you questions about your needs and then narrows down to three or four models that it recommends you check out. i thought it worked pretty well, i ended up purchasing one of the cameras on the list.

 

[BrianW]

Darren, it sounds like you need advice on what features to look for, not what camera to buy. So here is a list of features that I think are important in an entry-level camera that’s decent enough to print up to 5x7 prints.
2 MegaPixels, Minimum – With 2MP, you’ll be able to print 4x6 prints that most people won’t be able to distinguish from film, and 5x7 prints will look quite decent. 3MP will give you 5x7 prints that most people won’t be able to distinguish from film, and fairly decent 8x10 prints.
Optical Zoom – A camera without optical zoom is too limiting, even for a beginner. Having a digital zoom over and above the optical is nice, but a camera with only digital (and no optical) zoom is just as bad as a camera with no zoom at all.
AA Batteries – I’m done buying equipment with proprietary form-factor batteries. Proprietary batteries are expensive and are often no longer manufactured when your camera is three years old – just the time it will need that new set of rechargeable batteries. It is much better to get a camera that uses AA batteries and get a couple of sets of NiMH AA batteries with a charger. Even if you find yourself in a situation with all your batteries depleted, you can get your camera going with a set of alkaline AAs from the nearest corner drugstore.
USB or FireWire Connection – Amazingly, some cameras still come with serial (RS232) connections. Despite their attractive price, these cameras should be avoided.
Optical Viewfinder – Others will probably disagree with me on this, but I think an optical viewfinder is important in an entry-level camera. It doesn’t give you “through-the-lens” viewing (and thus shouldn’t be used in macro mode), but it works better than the LCD viewfinder in bright sunlight. Of course, this assumes that you’re not considering an expensive professional camera that would totally suck if it had an optical viewfinder.
Integrated Lens Cover – Since we’re probably talking about point-and-shoot cameras here, there’s no need to get one with a detachable lens cover that you could possibly lose. Most such cameras come with integrated lens covers, so don’t get a camera without one. (The exception to this, of course, would be if you were to get a digital SLR with interchangeable lenses, which starts at about ten times your stated price.)
The Kodak cameras are very nice and take good pictures. Fuji cameras are well known for their color accuracy (at least the 2MP ones – the 3MP cameras will fudge the colors in a couple of modes), and both manufacturers’ cameras have excellent optics. I believe that both manufacturers make cameras with all the above features. It’s up to you to decide what features you want. After that, it should be easy to select one in the price you’re willing to spend.
Good luck!

 

[Anthony Hom]

The cost factor is true. If you do it all your own, the cost of getting photos as good as a processor shop, you will have to buy a good printer and the ink cost will make you poor if you decide you want to make 8x10s. I made a couple of 8x10s on my printer before I realized it was so much cheaper to have them done at Costco. If you are a Costco member, it is better to stick with film. Even their Kodak processing is priced well, and enlargements are also a good deal.

 

[Philip Hamm]

If you think film developing is expensive, wait until you see the cost of printing out digital photos (either at home or at a commercial place). Then factor in equipment costs (digital cameras often cost 2x or 3x as much as film cameras) for a real sticker shock.

A digital camera might save you money if you take a lot of photos and print out only a few (saving the rest to CD-Rs, for video display). Otherwise, the reason for getting one has nothing to do with saving money -- and everything to do with instant feedback + ease of getting your photos into a computer.

Good point, and the ease by which old fashoned photos can be digitized is exceptional. Just hit the box for "CD" instead of or in addition to prints when you get it developed. Expensive, yes, more expensive in the long term, yes, but I can't afford a digital camera that will give me photos that look as good as I can get with my 22 year old Canon AE-1 Program SLR.

 

[Cam S]

If you think film developing is expensive, wait until you see the cost of printing out digital photos (either at home or at a commercial place). Then factor in equipment costs (digital cameras often cost 2x or 3x as much as film cameras) for a real sticker shock.

I can take 2000 pictures with a digital camera, and print the 100 best photos. Now to get those 100 best photo's with 35mm film or APS you would have to get ALL 2000 pictures developed. Now I'm just doing some quick math here, but your gonna save a TON with a digital camera over 35mm/APS.

Another MAJOR plus with digital is that you can experiment with different camera settings such as shutter and aperture and INSTANTLY see the results, whereas with a 35mm/APS camera, your shooting blind and won't see the results untill you PAY for the film to get developed, not to mention you had to PAY for the film in the first place.

Those 2 reasons alone caused me go digital and put my Pentax SLR away.

 

[Darren Mortensen]

I guess it is sorta hit and miss. Thak you Brian for the great features itemization.

What I have found in my personal experience is that with a regular camera I take TOO many pics...this is either because I want the best shot and take several photos at different angles...or just shoot some random shots to use up a roll. So then I end up with a few quality shots and a bunch of really unneccessary photos.

I figured with a digital camera I could shoot a subject and then check the image before saving it. I mean do I really need 24 or 48 pics of a B-Day party, when 6 or 12 will do?

Thanks you all!

 

[Rob Tenniswood]

Get the Canon Elph S200 if you can. Or the S110. They're durable, relatively simply, and tiny - you can take it with you anywhere you can. I have the S110, and I love it.

-Rob

 

[Thomas Newton]

I can take 2000 pictures with a digital camera, and print the 100 best photos.

I look for a better ratio of good pictures to bad pictures than "keep 1, throw away 19". More like the reverse -- 23 pictures worthy of triple prints for every 1 clunker.

Of course, not every one of those 23 pictures will be the absolute best picture I've ever taken in my life. That's not the criteria for family pictures. The 5 best (out of four rolls' worth) are NOT as useful as all of the pictures, since the less-than-perfect prints may capture moments in childrens' lives that you can never recreate years later.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Another MAJOR plus with digital is that you can experiment with different camera settings such as shutter and aperture and INSTANTLY see the results, whereas with a 35mm/APS camera, your shooting blind and won't see the results untill you PAY for the film to get developed, not to mention you had to PAY for the film in the first place.

My SLR has a feature known as "depth of field preview". Use that and you can see the effects of different apertures before you take the picture. My digital camera, which cost more than the SLR, doesn't provide control over aperture, doesn't provide manual control over focus, and doesn't have the f/1.7 speed of a regular 50mm lens.