• 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....

Soapy Sam said:
My first digital compact was a Fuji 4200. It used 2 AA cells.
Using standard Duracells, I got 2-3 shots if I was lucky!
NiCads were far better, but even 1300mAhr ones only achieved about 40 shots. I always carried a dozen!
The cell also "leaked" even if the camera was switched off; a full charge would fall to zero in two days, so I got in the habit of removing the batteries.

The replacement (also Fuji- an F810) had a dedicated battery that would last 2-3 days of moderate use. Someone pinched it at TAM V.

When I fell down a cliff a couple of years ago, I landed on my Olympus 400 DSLR, buggering the electronics, among other things (I landed in shallow water) , but I salvaged the battery. The nice insurance people replaced the camera with a 420, which takes the same battery, so I always keep one on charge and one in the camera. I find each is good for 4-500 shots in daylight. I don't use flash much, but autofocus on moving targets takes quite a lot of power. Turning that off doubles battery life.

The Olympus compact I keep in the car also has a Lithium cell that is good for several days of moderate use and holds charge when off for at least a month.
So batteries shouldn't be an issue nowadays, butof course AA's are handy for lots of things and when travelling it's often the multitude of chargers that can be a nuisance.
Click to expand...
.
My first digital was a Sony.. recorded on 3-1/2" disks. VGA.
Got one of the best photos I've ever taken with it..
Fly passing the cat food bowl.
But my Pentax iST with a 200mm lens is handier..
Dragonfly
 

Attachments

  • Display-54.jpg
    Display-54.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 2
  • Display-71.jpg
    Display-71.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 2
The Canon S95 (as mentioned earlier) is the one I'd recommend. I have the G11 and the G12, lovely cameras for low light but perhaps a bit heavy and bulky for your purpose, apart from being outside your budget.
The S95 has the same sensor (as far as I know) and should do quite well under low light.
Currently however, I have a slight bias towards Canon.

For decent reviews you might want to check out Steve's digicams:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/
and have a look at full sized sample images as well.
 
These photos by Damon Winter took third place in an international photography competition.

They were taken with an iphone.
 
All compact cameras these days seem to have pretty much the same features, including excessive pixel counts that actually get in the way of image quality... except for one that was fairly important to me, which most cameras (and phones) still don't have: being waterproof. Restricting my range of options to waterproof ones (and some are also described as shockproof) was helpful in narrowing it down from what seemed to be millions of models to more like a dozen made by I think just three companies. Then I just narrowed it down to the two cheapest of those models with the lowest pixel counts, picked the one with the colors that would stand out more if dropped on a hike, and got a Pentax Optio WS80.
 
sol invictus said:
That's true of course - but it's also true of optical zooms.

I suppose it's a question of whether cell phone cameras are "optics limited" or "resolution limited". There wouldn't be much point in increasing resolution if you're already optics limited, so I was assuming they are resolution limited - but that might be a bad assumption.
Click to expand...

In my experience, they have always been optics limited. Even my first cellphone with a camera, which only managed VGA resolution, had too crappy optics to exploit even that. My present one has 5Mp, and far better optics, but it still doesn't reach my old 3.2 Mp Sony 'compact' to the knees, optically.

The reason is obvious, of course: High resolution sensors are relatively cheap and small, but good optics need space, and are difficult to make robust enough for the wear and tear a cellphone must stand.

Hans
 
Delvo said:
All compact cameras these days seem to have pretty much the same features,
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that if you took different types apart, you would find that there are really only 3 to 4 different types. All the rest is packaging, and perhaps software variations.

So it makes good sense to select the packaging that suits your purpose. I myself have my eyes on those waterproof, bump-proof ones.

- Waterproof to 10 meters ..... that means that it can take a rain shower, but DO NOT actually take it underwater!

Hans
 
I Ratant said:
.
My first digital was a Sony.. recorded on 3-1/2" disks. VGA.
Got one of the best photos I've ever taken with it..
Fly passing the cat food bowl.
But my Pentax iST with a 200mm lens is handier..
Dragonfly
Click to expand...

Abso*******lutely cool shots!

Hans
 
Olympus has an interesting new camera that seems to bridge the difference between regular compacts and compacts with interchangeable lenses. It has a larger sensor than the compacts for better image quality, and has a retractable lens like regular compacts. It's a bit expensive though, and probably would be too much for the OP.



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/



.
 
Consumer Reports magazine regularly compares broad ranges of cameras, most recently a few months ago. If you can take a look at back issues at a library it might be useful. (You can also join their website for, I think, $19 a year. It might not be worth it for one search, but your local library might already have it as part of their research services.) The consensus seems to be that cameras in a given price range produce roughly similar pictures; the choice comes down to size, weight and the features that are important to you. Some are designed to be water-resistant, if you plan to be outdoors a lot. (I second the motion to get one that uses AA or AAA batteries rather than a proprietary battery. You can carry a couple sets of rechargeables and switch them as necessary, and you can buy alkaline and lithium batteries just about anywhere.)
 
gambling_cruiser said:
These pictures were praised for the content, not the quality (which is pretty lousy).
Click to expand...

The quality (or character) of these pictures helps convey the content quite well, I think.

A phone camera with or without a photo app can be a lovely tool.

For a camera that can do low light well, maybe a normal small compact camera might be a better choice, depending on what kittynh considers doing low light well and what kind of quality or lack thereof she is willing to accept.

steves digicams and dpreview are good resources to get a good idea about many cameras capabilities through there respective sample image libraries.
 
Darn straight, I Ratant.

I use my phone for a camera all the time. The tiny little lens is usually caked in fingerprints and pocket lint, but it's better than saying "I saw this thing, it was amazing, I wish I'd taken a picture..."
 
This is Kittynh. She already has 4 X 303 Brownings in a powered turret on the back of the Mini. She needs a camera to be able to record the body count.
 
I Ratant said:
A photo in the hand is worth a few thousand not taken.
Click to expand...

Quite right, or: The best camera in the world is the one in your hand when the photo opportunity is there.

This is where the cell-phone camera is a sure winner.

I do think, however, that it is too early to predict the death of the compact. Reasons:

- Development will make them even more powerful, with more features.
- Prices are going to continue to fall.
- Most people will want a good camera, but don't want to lug a DSLR.
- Most people can't exploit an advanced DSLR, will want automatic features.
- Camera will always be a secondary feature in a cell-phone, so it will always be cramped for space.

... Of course, always is a long time, and new developments in optics may change all this.

Hans
 
Soapy Sam said:
This is Kittynh. She already has 4 X 303 Brownings in a powered turret on the back of the Mini. She needs a camera to be able to record the body count.
Click to expand...

Ahh, my first camera was a Browning. Those were the days, with ....

- What?

- Oooh!:boggled:

Hans :boxedin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom