alright, I am new

[spidertoy]

and trying to find a new digital camera that meets our needs, and is reasonably priced... under $200-$250

has to be able to do the following
1) easy to use for my wife
2) fast capture time due to our 2 year old daughter not always holding still long enough for our old camera, thus causing us to miss a lot of cute photos
3) durable, my wife has a tendency to be hard on technology
4) good picture quality

if I am posting this in the wrong section, mods please feel free to move as neccessary, I couldnt figure out which section to post this in, so here we go

 

[spidertoy]

okay so I guess what I am looking for here is some input as to what cameras offer the best of the criteria that I listed, hopefully someone has some ideas for me

 

[Artograph]

Well...I have a Kodak Easy Share, 6.1 megapixles. It's got all kinds of settings..."action", "backlight", "landscape",...etc..etc.... It also does videos. My hubby got it for me, for Christmas...as well....it's working pretty good for me--so far so good!! :O)

Good luck with your search!! ....Anyone else have any input???

 

[terri]

Hi spidertoy - You just posted this thread in the wrong forum, that's all. I've moved it to the Equipment forum where you will hopefully get some feedback and suggestions.

Welcome to TPF!

 

[spidertoy]

Hi spidertoy - You just posted this thread in the wrong forum, that's all. I've moved it to the Equipment forum where you will hopefully get some feedback and suggestions.

Welcome to TPF!

sorry for the misplaced post, but thanks for moving it for me, and thanks for the input Artograph, I think that my sister has one of those, but I will have to ask her about it, main thing is that we need a faster capture speed

 

[randym77]

What camera do you have now?

And what do you mean by "faster capture speed"? What exactly is slowing the camera down? Focusing? Writing to the memory card?

I don't know if there's a solution to your problem in that price range. One solution is to buy a DSLR and a fast lens:

http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm

But it's not cheap.

 

[mimstrel]

I've got a Canon Elph (its almost 4 years old now) that I am very happy with. Definitely durable, I find it easy to use, and even though mine is only 3.2 mp I have also been very very pleased with picture quality. Recently - after many drops, lots of time in VERY humid climates (read: months in both tropical and temperate rainforests, and also underground in nice damp caves) the autofocus is starting to slow down a bit, but it survived the Amazon so the minute bit of AF lag is of minimal concern to me.

With any point and shoot camera, you're going to have to deal with some shutter lag, which is the moment between when you press the shutter and when the picture takes. I was taking photos of a friend playing baseball, and if I pressed the shutter as the pitcher released the ball, I would get the ball somewhere in the frame (my fave: the poor kid got hit in the head with the ball and that is the exact instant I caught on film).

No offense to Artograph... but I don't care for Kodak digis. My mom had one and we found it (despite the "easy" name) to be difficult to use and poor image quality (it should have been similar to my Canon).

One more piece of advice in looking for a point and shoot camera: Decide what you think is important and don't let the guy trying to sell you the camera talk you out of it. My mom finally replaced her Kodak. She wanted 4-5x optical zoom and good image quality, so she could get some decent shots of my brother, who does triathlons. The guy somehow talked her out of optical zoom. So she still can't get pictures like she wants unless I'm around with one of my cameras!

 

[Bifurcator]

and trying to find a new digital camera that meets our needs, and is reasonably priced... under $200-$250

has to be able to do the following
1) easy to use for my wife
2) fast capture time due to our 2 year old daughter not always holding still long enough for our old camera, thus causing us to miss a lot of cute photos
3) durable, my wife has a tendency to be hard on technology
4) good picture quality

if I am posting this in the wrong section, mods please feel free to move as neccessary, I couldnt figure out which section to post this in, so here we go

My Konica/Minolta A2 meets all of those criteria - including price. Check out this 12-page read or see any of my images linked in my sig (below). I almost enjoy shooting with it as much as my Nikon D2x @ $5,000 (well... "almost" ). It's seriously the best bridge camera I've ever read about, held, tried out, owned, or looked at.

You'll have to buy it used tho (which is why it's $200). It's been out of production for over a year. I do still see the occasional one being sold as "unopened, new inbox" but it's getting pretty rare. They're on E-Bay but that too is pretty rare as people like to hang onto them.

 

[Dao]

I think there are a lot of point and shoot type cameras out there that can meet you need.

You maybe able to find some good information from www.dpreview.com. They have reviews on a lot of cameras as well as sample pictures. The reviews also talks about how quick the cameras response. Go read up over there and see if you can spot few cameras that you like and then just go down to a store and try those cameras yourself. See it to believe it.

My wife use the Casio P&S camera and that camera is pretty quick. It take very little time to get ready to take pictures after I press the power button and it is also quick between shots.

But of course, we got it few years ago and I do not know how good they are right now.

 

[spidertoy]

I dont know the name or model of our current camera, but I know that it took a few seconds between pushing the button, to image capture(shutter click if you will)

and I am not knowledgeable about digital cameras, or for that matter even about the old school SLR's so what kinds of stats/specs are good?

 

[spidertoy]

I went to the dpreview site that Dao posted, I saw a couple cameras there that looked good, but I dont understand some of the technical lingo, what are some of the important things to want in a decent camera? and if I have to spend more to get a decent camera, than I will, just means that I have to save up longer

 

[mimstrel]

Megapixels: I can't remember what the current standard is. If you get a good camera IMO you don't need maximum Mp, however. My 3.2 MP Canon takes so much better quality photos (given the same environment) as my new 5MP crappy underwater camera. If you are not planning to print your pictures massive (10x13 or bigger) you shouldn't have a problem, whatever you get (unless you get something crazy like a 1MP).

I'm sure someone else can come up with more than me, but:

What else is important to look for in a decent camera depends on what you want it for. For instance: The last camera I was looking for, my two biggest items on my list were lots of Zoom (for those shots of wildlife that is far, far away), and manual focus capability (because a pet peeve of mine is when I'm trying to shoot through trees or something and the camera won't focus on the thing I need it to focus on).

My brother was looking at cameras at about the same time but he really wanted something pocket-sized to take when hanging out with friends. Low light settings were important, but zoom not so much!

Keep in mind if looking at zoom - Look at OPTICAL ZOOM only. If you use digital zoom, image quality is greatly reduced (as if you had just taken the non-zoomed photo and cropped out that little part).

And as I said, my mom was looking for easy use and a little zoom to get photos of my brother doing sports, where she is rarely in close range.

Some things to consider:
Batteries come in Lithium-Ion (rechargeable) and standard AA, AAA, etc. I like rechargeable and the ones made by the camera companies last for at least a couple days for me. I have one that I bought as a back-up that was cheap, that lasts about 4-5 hours, but that's usually all I need it for. I like not having to buy new batteries all the time (and have been known to spend extended periods where no fresh batteries were available for purchase), but if I forget to recharge (happens rarely, since I have 2 batts per camera... one is nearly always charged) I'm out of luck. My mom prefers AA's because you can buy them anywhere if they die somewhere. What do you find more appealing?

I don't know how easy it is to find smaller point and shoots with a viewfinder in addition to the LCD screen these days. One of these is essential IMO, firstly in the case of someone used to a 35mm who may take time to adjust to holding the camera differently to compose on the LCD, and also in high light situations, where the LCD gets a lot of glare. My mom said that when she went most of the cameras were all LCD.

 

[spidertoy]

yeah the backlighting/glare definitely sucks with a screen type with no viewfinder, I am thinking about an SLR type, but still not too sure as to what all the specs mean, will have to do more research, but find that I dont have that much time on the internet as I am on dialup, since they dont offer highspeed at my house yet

 

[spidertoy]

okay, what do you guys think about this one?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1363&fl=4

I like the fact that it is waterproof up to 33 feet, and shock proof from five foot drops, but some of the other specs I couldnt tell you if they are good, or bad

 

[mparker]

i know this is an old post... but i have used the older version of that camera... the 770. its actually my friends, but i borrowed it on 2 of my cruise vacations... if you want examples i have about 400 photos taken all over... inside the cruise ship, outside the ship, on land, beach, in water, under water, low light, food portraits... ect.. just image taking a camera on vacation with you and bringing it every where you go...

anyhow i would HIGHLY recommend this camera.. its is awesome.. and the fact that it is nearly bomb proof is perfect for a fast paced family... no worrys when the wife just tosses it in her purse..lol

i could go on on... but the only down side i found is.. it seemed to overexpose photos a little.