Somebody help me... please.

[DizzyLizzy]

Budget: Considering the cost of bonus batteries, cards, and other things (I AM a college student) I would prefer to not go over $300 at the most. (I'm really trying to aim for $250/79)

Size: Not so much. I don't want an SLR, or anything that big. But I really don't care that much if it's not going to fit in my pokect.

Features:

How many megapixels will suffice for you? About 4 or 5, I plan to do a lot of cropping.

* What optical zoom will you need? I think standard should work. I mean, there's a chance I'll need to zoom, but I doubt I'll be going over 4x, I wouldn't mind having something more (if it had to be done.)

* How important is “image quality” to you? On a scale of 1-10, an 11. Not only will I need these pictures for myself, but I'm also on the yearbook staff, and need good quality pictures.

Do you care for manual controls? Currently, I'm a digital noob.. not that I don't have the experience, this would just be the first camera that's actually MINE. It's not a definiate thing, though it would be nice if I had the option to mess around with a few things.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for? everything, indoors, outdoors, night parties, fashion shows w/ weird lighting, games & what not.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not? no, printing is not high on the priority scale right now. (though I may do nothing more than an 8x10 if I had to.)

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? Heck yeah.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? On occaisson, yes.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate? I've been told to stay away from Kodak, but I dunno if it's true. Basically, I just want a brand I can trust, and can buy in almost any store (or at Amazon.)

Are there particular models you already have in mind? I was last looking at the Pentax Optio S55, Olympus IR-500/Stylus Verve S, Fuji FinPixA350/F440/F450, and just about everything else (I've been at this for over a month now)

ALSO: I would prefer something that wasn't so high-up on the red-eye scale. An optical viewfinder is not *that* necessary, assuming the LCD doesn't become useless in bright/low lighting. a lot of scene modes would be helpful. A big/rotating LCD wouldn't hurt either.. but that's just being hopeful. Plus, I would need something with a good flash recharge time.

...I feel like I'm describing a camera that doesn't exist, is there anything "close enough"?

[jessie25]

First of all, image quality "11" photos are unlikely on a budget of $300. But you can get some very good quality photos for what you'll be doing with them.

Fuji F10 sounds like it would meet most of your needs. It's small, has great battery life, is fast - and best of all, is great for natural light indoor photos because it can take photos up to ISO 1600. And with 6 megapixels you'll have plenty of crop flexibility. It has very few manual controls and lacks an optical viewfinder, but you mentioned those things aren't that critical. And its image quality is excellent.

It might be *slightly* above budget - it's currently selling for around $300 (lowest prices) and you'd need to add a fairly large xD memory card which will run another $50 or so, because the 16mb one it comes with is pretty useless. Luckily the battery and charger are included, though if you want a spare it'll cost you an extra $40 or so. Still, if you can splurge another $50 or so over your budget, it will probably be highly worth it.

Despite what you heard about Kodak, it actually takes pretty good pictures for often a lower price for similar features than the competition. The Kodak DX7630 is really worth a look. It's got very fast performance, great focusing in low light, very low or no redeye, several manual controls, good picture quality, and is selling for only $240 or so including battery, charger, dock and more. Check out the review on this site for how it compares.

Other cameras worth looking at include the Nikon Coolpix 5900, the Sony Cybershot P150, the Canon PowerShot SD300...

[DizzyLizzy]

what would be my options if I wanted to stay with something that was powered by AAs?

More importantly, by how much should I trust the user reviews online? Some of those really scare me about buying a camera.

[jessie25]

Reviews online are the opinions of individual reviewers - please remember that they've tested a LOT of cameras and they've been doing this quite a while, so they know their stuff. On the other hand, minute things noticeable to reviewers are often not noticeable to most users. For example, a review that sees some purple fringing on a shot blown up to very large size will probably make very little difference to someone printing mostly 4x6s. It's the job of the reviewer to set very high standards for a camera because they review so many, so you need to take what they say with a bit of a grain of salt, though there's some excellent advice on sites like this one, dpreview, steve's digicams, etc.

If you're limiting yourself to AA batteries, the Sony W1/W5 might be a good choice. Also look at the Fuji E550.

Having said that, I should mention that, while I like the option of using AAs in a pinch in my Canon A520, I rarely use anything other than rechargeable NiMH batteries in it, because alkalines have such short battery life.

Unless you have specific circumstances in which you absolutely must get a camera with AAs, I urge you to look into those that use proprietary rechargeables as well, to get more choice. Some of the cameras I mentioned, like the Fuji F10, have extremely long battery life, and the charger that comes with it is useable overseas with a simple plug adaptor.

[DizzyLizzy]

The only thing about the proprietary batteries is actually remembering to charge them. I have enough trouble trying to make sure I charge my cell phone. I wouldn't mind using them, if they got me the camera I needed. But with AAs, atleast I could pick up some back-ups if I forgot to recharge.

Also, don't the Sonys have a lot of redeye?

[jessie25]

Most compact cameras have a lot of redeye because the flash is close to the lens. It's hard to avoid but is removed pretty easily in software.

There are some compact cameras that seem to have licked the redeye problem, and whoever figured out how is a genius. The Sony P150/P200 cameras seem to have very little. Ditto with many of the newer Kodaks, which show little to none. Some cameras like the Nikon 5900/7900 have in-camera redeye removal. So if redeye is a priority for you, I'd suggest looking at some of those cameras.

[DizzyLizzy]

but don't the Nikons have a slow flash recharge time?

... by the way, can you define what you mean by "newer Kodaks"?

[timmciglobal]

Hard one...

I don't know really the price is pretty low to find a good low light camera with fast flash recharge times, deffinitly stay away from canon a510/a520 the flash recharge is dismal.

You don't want something SLR size or I'd say the Fuji S5100 or S5000 wouldn't be bad (10X zoom, AF light, pretty nice camera if your not a pixel peeper)


Tim

[DizzyLizzy]

Hard one...
You don't want something SLR size or I'd say the Fuji S5100 or S5000 wouldn't be bad (10X zoom, AF light, pretty nice camera if your not a pixel peeper)

Tim

The thing about those is that they fall outside of mt price range.



Does anyone know about the pentax optio s55?

[timmciglobal]

Well..

You could look at panasonic FZ4, GREAT camera, 12X optical zoom, 4 megapixels, optical image stabization, little bit higher price and it does use a propritary battery...

Tim

[jessie25]

Timmic, the OP mentioned standard zoom, not necessarily ultrazoom. There are tradeoffs to ultrazoom - larger, bulkier size, EVF instead of optical viewfinder, usually pricier, etc.

By "newer Kodaks" I meant the more recent models. Definately check out the DX7630.

Jeff's review mentioned a "not horrible" flash recharge time on the Nikon 5900/7900 that "could be faster". I haven't tested these myself so I can't really judge, but it probably won't make much of a real-world difference if you like the camera otherwise. I have the Canon A520 that Timmy said to "stay away from", and I haven't had any problems with the flash recharge time even though it does take a couple of seconds. The Nikons are supposedly quite a bit faster.

I don't know much about the Pentax s55, but from the specs it seems to lack an AF-assist lamp which may make it difficult to focus in low-light. Until seeing some reviews it will be hard to tell, though. Some of the other S-line Pentaxes have received less than stellar reviews in the image quality department, but of course I can't really say because I haven't seen them myself.

[timmciglobal]

I guess I'm just used to the recharge on dSLR's but my fuji s5000 and pro1 deffinitly recharged far faster then a510. I think the a95 even did when I used my friends.

Tim

[DizzyLizzy]

I think I should be on the verge of giving up.

But if possible, could one of you (or both) give me your opinion on the Kodak z730?

[jessie25]

The Kodak Z730 replaces the DX7440, so it's probably quite similar.

The reviews of the DX7440 were positive on the whole - quick focus times even in low light, 4x zoom, no redeye, easy to use, good manual controls. The negatives mentioned some overprocessing issues on images, but on the whole it's probably a very good camera for most purposes.

[DizzyLizzy]

I dont think I've read the review of the dx7440... I suppose I shall do that now.

Or more importantly, whats the dif between the two? other than a megapixel.

[jessie25]

As far as I can tell from the specs, there doesn't seem to be many differences. The z730 supports PictBridge and supposedly has a new dock connector. But the two cameras seem to be quite similar aside from the extra megapixel.

[DizzyLizzy]

soo.. basically, it wouldn't really matter which I got... but the 5 mp would probably be better suited for what I'm gonna do?

[St. Chris]

You're not considering the Canon PowerShot A95 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a95-review/)? If you're shooting for your yearbook, the A95's flip-out LCD will give you a lot of creative freedom.

[DizzyLizzy]

You're not considering the Canon PowerShot A95 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a95-review/)? If you're shooting for your yearbook, the A95's flip-out LCD will give you a lot of creative freedom.

believe it or not, I was all set to buy the a95 last month.. but somethng happened to make me not want it... I can't remember what it was now tho.. maybe it was a user review somewhere...

[herman munster]

try the panasonic lumix cameras, the small handheld has a leica lens.

[DizzyLizzy]

I've tried. I even took some pictures on a lz2 once. The main problem is that the LCD does gain up in low-light. Normally, I wouldn't care, but it has no optical viewfinder, and I'd be shooting blind at a party, or just about 1/2 of the places I'd be going to.