Any suggestions for a great digital camera that wont break my bank?

[Hell Mike]

also ... the video quality is ridiculous, near HD quality no exagerration even in low light ... you'll never need a video camera.[/url]

HD has nothing at all with actual image quality or lighting to do, it is a measure of resolution only. That camera shoots video up to 640x480px as far as I can tell, and that's less than SD.

 

[Krilons Resa]

My frugality is getting the best of me and I am about to decide on this one:

http://www.epinions.com/Canon_Ixus_75_Digital_Camera

Can get it for a mere $135. I dont need anything extraordinary. Im not a fucking photographer. Im trying to stay grounded here.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Well, nevermind on that. Its around $170...that $135 is an error. For some stupid kit.

FUCK. Looks like Im spending about $200 on a fucking CAMERA.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

God damnit, Doomcifer. Stop buying so much fucking chicken and use that money for a camera already.

 

[Krilons Resa]

ugh.

I guess I am deciding on the original one I was gonna get. Canon SD850 IS - http://www.epinions.com/Canon_Digital_ixus_950IS_Digital_Camera/display_~latest_prices

$228 is the lowest I can see.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Or should I be a cheap fuck and go with the best budget camera on the market...the Canon Powershot A550 ?

http://www.epinions.com/Canon_PowerShot_A550_Digital_Camera_1775B001


HELP MUH!

 

[lurch70]

i guess this is like convincing me to buy a handful of doom cd's ... so here

 

[Krilons Resa]

The Canon Powershot SD1000 is looking highly enticing btw. I might go for that one tbh. For this second.

 

[Krilons Resa]

The Canon Powershot SD1000 is looking highly enticing btw. I might go for that one tbh. For this second.

I did it.

*cringe*

 

[dorian gray]

you idjit

 

[lurch70]

'Chic, Modern Minimalism, Yet Sophisticated"

conrats!

 

[Krilons Resa]

lmao

 

[Krilons Resa]

got my shit in yesterday and, boy, is it cute as a button! [/ghey]

 

[Krilons Resa]

Just ordered that 4gb Kingston SDHC card too. Geezus, what a deal!

 

[Thanatopsis123]

I'm in the market for a new camera. My old Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W50 has served me fairly well but after a couple years of being toted around in my pockets and taking thousands of pics, I need to lay the thing to rest. I thought my camera was okay as a point and shoot but it was horrible in low light, the 3x optical zoom just wasn't near enough for me, the raised mode wheel has broken, and I hate that the storage isn't something more common like an SD card (instead Sony requires a Pro Duo stick).

So I'd like something that doesn't have these same drawbacks. Any suggestions? And please don't suggest an SLR. I need something more compact.

 

[Valkyria_Cneajna_Rusalka]

I'm very happy with my Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5
10x Optical Zoom, 9.1 megapixels
Here are some shots: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v58/crypticenchantress/Tyr 23 03 2009/

 

[Thanatopsis123]

Yeah, I was thinking about going with a Lumix. The DMC-ZS1 sounded pretty cool but it's not in stock anywhere around here and I need to get something in the next 16 hours or so.

 

[einride]

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-to-choose-digital-point-and-shoot.html

read this, it is entirely true

---

anyway

there is no non-SLR digital camera that is "good" in low light. not a single one. well, actually i lied, there is the sigma dp1 and dp2 but those suck for different reasons. there are compact cameras that are a little better than others, like the lumix lx3 or some of the fujifilm superccd models, but by the time you're looking at these you're well into $400 territory anyway and might as well suck it up and get a used olympus e-410 for less (very small!)

all digital compact cameras are nigh unusable for anything other than bright summer days honestly man

---

edit: IF you still decide to get a compact camera, at least listen to this advice: don't get anything which has more than 10 megapixels, ideally stay below 8 but they don't make many cameras like that anymore. a 12 mp compact camera has WORSE image quality than a 7 or 10 mp one and is MUCH WORSE in low light. remember this and don't let salesmen talk you into thinking anything else!

 

[Thanatopsis123]

Yeah, that's what I've gathered. I figured in the almost 3 years since I bought my last camera, things might have changed. It's starting to look like the only things that have changed in the world of digital point-and-shoot are resolution and touch screens.

 

[einride]

Yeah, that's what I've gathered. I figured in the almost 3 years since I bought my last camera, things might have changed. It's starting to look like the only things that have changed in the world of digital point-and-shoot are resolution and touch screens.

indeed, nothing has changed. unless companies start putting bigger sensors in, all compact cameras are and will remain crap image quality-wise, regardless of the model number or colour of the casing. they really do get worse by the day in low light (well actually, the processing -- noise reduction and such -- is getting better, but that's just software smoke and mirrors -- the ACTUAL image quality per pixel the sensor delivers is getting worse.)

with every increase of nominal resolution (number of pixels) each pixel receives less light, the signal that reaches it gets weaker in relation to the noise floor, so you get noisier and blurrier images with today's 12 mp model than yesterday's 10 mp one. there is literally (literally!) no advantage to getting a 12 mp compact camera over an identical camera with 10 mp. if you read informed reviews you can see for yourself that upgrades like that are consistently worse than their predecessor.

the only reason compact cameras ever got above about 5 mp is marketing -- companies trying to one-up each other with impressive-looking numbers. even putting 12 mp in an APS-C slr camera is pushing it, and an slr sensor is about fifteen times bigger. do the math.