I think I may have bought the wrong camera?

[pnewport]

I tried to figure out how to answer the questions in the "which camera should I buy." I've used a Olympus Camedia 1.3 Megapixels for several years. Great pictures for what I needed. Gave to husband and bought Canon SD400. Very easy to use but small size is not necessary, in fact it intimidates me. I wear the camera on my belt and I shoot pictures from horseback and often I am moving and the other riders are moving. Olympus never blurred. I took a few with the Canon and they were unuseable. I want to spend around $400 or less. 4-5 Megapixels, view finder and large display; zoom, preferably on top because that's what I'm used to. Prefer something a little smaller than the Olympus D-460 but not as small as the Canon SD400. I liked the sliding lens cover on the Olympus. I can return this Canon--should I and what should I get? I'm traveling in an RV for 6-8 months so purchased at Walmart but can go somewhere else. They definitely are not the cheapest! There was a Sony I liked with 2.5" viewer but no view finder which I do want.

[David Metsky]

There may be some settings or modes that will help your pictures. Have you tried putting the camera in Kids and Pets mode? That should increase your shutter speed and remove a lot of the blur. Can you post one of your unusable shots?

I've got an SD300 and have been able to capture a lot of motion, so the camera is capable of getting the pictures you want.

-dave-

[pnewport]

Thanks for the response. I think I had it set on the kids and pets mode and got all of the blur. I'm just going to have to experiment with it over the next week, or so, and see what I get. If there's a better choice out there for the money, I would like to know.

I would like a slightly larger camera, 4-5 megapixels, sliding lens cover, good zoom, mostly automatic, large viewing window and a view finder, and I would love to have AA batteries rather than a pack in case it goes dead I can use regular batteries in a pinch. Also, some kind of battery meter. Other than those things, which I got purely by accident with my first camera, this SD400 seems like a good camera and is highly rated. I just wasn't wanting an ultra small camera but it's about what they had with the features without going a lot larger.

Thanks.

[pnewport]

Oh, and I had already deleted the blurred images.

[ZCarroll]

I also used to have an olympus 1.3 megapixel (mine is the d400zoom) and I never got a bad picture with it, so I can't figure out why in 10 years it seems the cameras have only gotten worse? I tried a canon sd500 and it was definitely the worst as far as blur goes... you can't control the shutter speed the kids and pets mode just sets an infinity focus. The fuji f10 was the best I've tried, as far as being able to get the most usable shots, however no optical view finder. I'd love to find a camera that took as great photos as my oly did only with more mp, faster lcd viewing and a little smaller and lighter. I finally ended up with a casio z750, far from perfect since there's a lot of noise in so many pictures and they just don't seem as sharp as with my oly however it's definitely much faster and a lot of fun.

[Rex914]

Cameras nowadays don't take good picture out of the box, especially Canons. You have to work outside the box a little to get the SD500 to take the shots you want. Then, it becomes a pocketable dream-picture taking machine. If you expect to hold a camera and snap a few perfect shots nowadays, you'll be hard pressed because the auto/pre-set scene modes nowadays are shall we say... lacking.

Cameras have definitely gotten better, just harder to use for your average snapshooter.

The old 1-2 MP cameras only had auto modes before, so the manufacturers HAD to make auto work out, and for most cameras, it did work perfectly fine in general. I don't appreciate the complete lack of manual controls on my 5-year-old Kodak, but that doesn't prevent me from trying to work around things even in the worst conditions possible (low light, indoor, handheld restaurant shots).