• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Need a small point and shoot....

kittynh

Penultimate Amazing
K
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
22,634
I have a lovely large fancy camera, but I want a small point and shoot for times I can't or don't want to carry all that extra weight.

I have a cannon that is about 3 pounds that is also nice. But still too big.

I have been looking at a nice little Nikon and there is the whole Panasonic group....I really want one that can do low light well.

Under $300 or perhaps $350. It's hard with Amazon reviews....because people seem to either LOVE a camera or HATE it...and it's the same camera.

Suggestions very welcome.....
 
"low light well" on a compact camera isn't going to happen. You are looking at a sensor at best 25 square mm in size.

Compact cameras have pretty much reached the point where unless you are looking at the very top of the field (Canon PowerShot G series for example) it is unlikely to make much difference what you get.
 
If you're looking for a film camera, and you don't mind searching for used ones, I'm especially fond of some of the tiny film cameras olympus made in the late seventies, early eighties. I have an olympus XA that still sees a fair amount of action. Simply spectacular optics, especially for such a tiny camera. In a similar vein, but with harder to find film, Minox. A minox will not weigh you down, though it will lighten your wallet.
 
True, it will be hard to find a poor compact camera these days, if you stick to the well-known brands (I know people who bought some really crappy copy thingys in China).

My suggestions for important features (but your mileage may vary):

1) Can run on standard batteries (AA or AAA). Out of charge? Into the nearest 7-11 for a couple of alcalines and your'e go till you get recharged.

2) Can use non-proprietary memory stick (watch out for Sony).

3) Can use non-proprietary USB interface to computer (Watch out for HP).

4) Flash can be disabled.

5) Zoom must be optical, digital zoom sucks.

6) Personally, I will NOT live without a viewfinder, but that may be just me (and next to impossible to get on a compact, so....).

Like with mates, once the basics are fulfilled, go for looks. ;)

Hans
 
Last edited:
Damn, when I saw this thread title I was going to suggest a Ruger or Beretta .22
 
I've got a large loverly (sic) camera as well and recently supplemented it with a small compact waterproof one. During my week away in the bush I used both of them interchangeably as circumstances permitted and got a greater range of photos than ever before.

The small camera had to be waterproof to fit in with when I use small cameras - got the cheaper Panasonic FT10, but the FT3 or Nikon AW100 would also be great choices (only more expensive). The mroe expesive ones mentioned here also have builtin GPS, so you can see where you were lost when you took the pikkie.
 
Last edited:
P&S cameras are a dying market, because everyone carries cell phones. I think $350 is about the most you could possibly spend - anything more expensive is going to have better optics and therefore be heavier and bulkier (i.e. be getting closer to your big camera).

With that said, the Powershot series seem very nice, but I think all the major manufacturers make good options. You can find extensive reviews of some models at http://www.dpreview.com/ and http://www.steves-digicams.com/#b.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
P&S cameras are a dying market, because everyone carries cell phones.
Click to expand...
Is that strictly true? People are more likely to be able to take photographs spontaneously, if their phone has a camera, but few compare to an actual camera in the circumstances when one would use one, e.g. on holiday, family events, etc. I almost always carry my compact wherever I go, and the only circumstances I would use my camera to take a picture would be if I want to send it to someone immediately. If it was a picture worth keeping, I'm take it on the camera.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Is that strictly true? People are more likely to be able to take photographs spontaneously, if their phone has a camera, but few compare to an actual camera in the circumstances when one would use one, e.g. on holiday, family events, etc. I almost always carry my compact wherever I go, and the only circumstances I would use my camera to take a picture would be if I want to send it to someone immediately. If it was a picture worth keeping, I'm take it on the camera.
Click to expand...

It's just an impression. But I'm willing to bet that sales of P&S cameras have plummeted over the last five years, and I think it's because of cell phones. And the better cell cameras get - and they're getting better rapidly - the smaller a market will be left for dedicated P&Ss.
 
I'm a big fan of the FujiFilm bridge cameras, you can get some which are closer to P&S format and some which are a little closer to dslr size, but all have good sensors and very nice glass for the price. Very simple to use, but with a few powerful options. They may be larger than other P&S cameras, but they are very light.
something like this for instance

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Fine...58NO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317896151&sr=8-1
 
sol invictus said:
It's just an impression. But I'm willing to bet that sales of P&S cameras have plummeted over the last five years, and I think it's because of cell phones. And the better cell cameras get - and they're getting better rapidly - the smaller a market will be left for dedicated P&Ss.
Click to expand...

There is still a fair gap between cellphone cameras and good compacts. Not so much in resolution any more (anything over 5Mp is really fine for most uses), but in optics, functionality, low-light capability.

I have a fairly decent cellphone camera, but except for the resolution, it doesn't even come close to my 6 year old Sony compact.

Hans
 
I think it depends what Sol means by "point and shoot". The better compacts have many of the features of a DSLR, apart from actual through the lens monitoring - and truth is, that may be going the way of the dodo in a year or two anyway.

I see a constant outpouring of new models every time I wander around Dixons at Heathrow.

Hans' idea about standard batteries is worth considering, but my preference is to buy a spare Lithium battery. Unless you use huge amounts of flash or video, you are unlikely to run out of juice. Compacts can be power hungry- standard AAA's may only power a few shots- and most compacts now are too small for AAs.

If you already have several memory cards in one format, buy a brand that uses them.
If you take a lot of action shots, look for image stabilisation and consider a fixed lens length. Zooming is great, but can be a pain in a hurry- and all zooms are compromises by design. A quality fixed format lens may be best for low light. But how low do you need? Compared to film cameras, ALL digitals are low light.

I like Fuji and Olympus, but any of the quality brands are good. If it's point and shoot in low light that you want, I'd say go for a good one. Canon do several (or did, last I looked).
 
Deetee said:
Damn, when I saw this thread title I was going to suggest a Ruger or Beretta .22
Click to expand...

Me too! I thought Kitty was getting into the backwoods NH lifestyle and going to cook up some squirrels. (At least she now has a great dip to go with them!)
 
kittynh said:
Suggestions very welcome.....
Click to expand...

What will you be using it for? The Olympus tough series is great if you're going to be getting wet or banging into things, and very decent cameras even if you're not. The top of the range might be a bit more expensive than you're looking for (although everything seems to be much cheaper in the US than a direct price conversion would suggest, so maybe not), but the lower models go down as far as £50 or so.

sol invictus said:
And the better cell cameras get - and they're getting better rapidly - the smaller a market will be left for dedicated P&Ss.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The thing with cameras is it's all about the lenses. Someone came up with some magical system that means point and shoot cameras are now a lot smaller and don't have to have sticky-out lenses any more. But short of another massive breakthrough, decent lenses still take up far too much space to fit in a phone, and there's really no way to get around that.

I think the market has likely shrunk a bit from people not really interested in quality - taking photos on nights out and the like - can just use their phones. But for people who actually want decent holiday pictures and the like, phones are still a long way from being a substitute for a real camera.
 
Cuddles said:
The thing with cameras is it's all about the lenses. Someone came up with some magical system that means point and shoot cameras are now a lot smaller and don't have to have sticky-out lenses any more. But short of another massive breakthrough, decent lenses still take up far too much space to fit in a phone
Click to expand...

The lens in the new iPhone has 5 elements. Folded optics may offer scope for further development. Perhaps a smart phone currently in development already offers the sort of breakthrough you allude to.

Future jumps in resolution offer possibilities by simulating zoom through cropping. The latest smart phone cameras are 8MB, and that's more than needed for Facebook or a 6x4.

As always it's not really about being as good as something else. It's about being good enough that you can leave that something else at home. Or avoid buying it in the first place.

This is why I think Sol's hunch is right because the latest generation of Smart Phones are already good enough for many people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom