Best Choice?

[Demonkunga]

Hi guys, I've been looking for a camera online for the past 3-4 days now. As I'm sure you know, there are a TON of cameras out there and deciding between them can be difficult. Based on what I'm searching for, can any of you recommend anything? It helps if you've used the camera yourself, too.

Looking for:
Less than $300

Canon, Sony, or Samsung (though if you feel another could be better suited, recommend it)
Compact enough to fit in a pocket
Great battery life and possibly fast charge time
Great indoor performance (most cameras do fine outdoors, so that's implied)
Great color
CMOS sensor (might not be as important)
Optical image stabilization
At least 640x480 30 FPS video

Obviously there will be pros and cons to any camera. I'm looking for one where I won't care about the cons.

I'll be sure to add anything I forgot, in additional comments.

I've found http://snapsort.com and http://dpreview.com to be of major help through all this, yet I still can't make a great decision, so I'm asking for your input and recommendations. Thank you!

 

[Cailean Gallimore]

Hi guys, I've been looking for a camera online for the past 3-4 days now. As I'm sure you know, there are a TON of cameras out there and deciding between them can be difficult. Based on what I'm searching for, can any of you recommend anything? It helps if you've used the camera yourself, too.

Looking for:
Less than $300

Canon, Sony, or Samsung (though if you feel another could be better suited, recommend it)

The Samsung EX1/TL500 has a fast lens - which helps in low light, and is very very good value for money. Canon S95 has a bright lens too, but is more expensive.

Compact enough to fit in a pocket

That might be a problem - The Canon S95 costs over your budget, but will fit in a jacket pocket - the Samsung is quite a bit bigger, but will fit in a coat pocket - just about.

Great battery life and possibly fast charge time

Great indoor performance (most cameras do fine outdoors, so that's implied)

Most cameras DON'T do well indoors - particularly very small ones, but Samsung EX1/TL500 and Canon S95 do better than most compacts, due to brighter than average lenses, and larger than average sensors.

Great color

CMOS sensor (might not be as important)

Is not important.

Optical image stabilization

At least 640x480 30 FPS video

Obviously there will be pros and cons to any camera. I'm looking for one where I won't care about the cons.

I'll be sure to add anything I forgot, in additional comments.

I've found http://snapsort.com and http://dpreview.com to be of major help through all this, yet I still can't make a great decision, so I'm asking for your input and recommendations. Thank you!

You'll find it difficult to find something as cheap and small as you specify, but if you're willing to spend a bit more, and carry something a bit bigger, the Samsung or Canon would be worth thinking about.

A second hand or refurbished Canon S90 might be the solution.

 

[Deleted1929]

Canon, Sony, or Samsung (though if you feel another could be better suited, recommend it)

Panasonic as well.

Compact enough to fit in a pocket

What size pocket ? Shirt ? Jacket ? Jeans ?

Great battery life and possibly fast charge time

Pretty vague. They're all going to be "good enough" in practical terms, but don't expect fast recharge unless you get one of the ones that use AA and use a fast AA recharger ( although that's a bad idea as you lower battery life in the long run ).

Great indoor performance (most cameras do fine outdoors, so that's implied)

Not on a P&S.

As for outdoors, most cameras do outdoors in good light , but when the light goes down and you are forced to raise ISO all P&S cameras are poor. Ones with larger sensors ( e.g. S95, LX5 ) do better than the average P&S with a smaller sensor, but they're not anywhere near a DSLR or large sensor mirrorless camera like the Olympus E-PL1.

Great color

Very subjective. Depends on the viewer, the scene and the intent of the photographer. No two people have exactly the same idea of this.

Colour is adjustable to taste, as are many other image parameters. Choosing the right white balance is also important here. Please don't make the common mistake that colour is absolute and that there's "accurate" colour. Colour is something you use to convey mood, and there are limited circumstances where accuracy is important.

CMOS sensor (might not be as important)

Can't image why people still think this is important. Totally irrelevant.

Optical image stabilization

Why optical ? In practice on a P&S it makes no difference.

At least 640x480 30 FPS video

Everything should do that.

--
StephenG

 

[slowhands214238]

Several of your criteria are INCOMPLETELY SPECIFIED... Using open ended unbounded criteria opens the door to subjective responses.

It is difficult to get agreement on BEST of anything, be it cars, cameras, or canoes.

 

[Demonkunga]

Canon, Sony, or Samsung (though if you feel another could be better suited, recommend it)

Panasonic as well.

Honestly, Canon should probably be my preference, they seem to know what they're doing with cameras. Sony seems to be more expensive and Samsungs are just awesome. I really don't know what Panasonic is so great at though. But yeah, they'd be my last choice probably. laughs at Casio Also, I like the interface of the Canon, Sony and Samsungs. Not so much the Panasonic and Nikon.

Compact enough to fit in a pocket

What size pocket ? Shirt ? Jacket ? Jeans ?

Jeans

Great battery life and possibly fast charge time

Pretty vague. They're all going to be "good enough" in practical terms, but don't expect fast recharge unless you get one of the ones that use AA and use a fast AA recharger ( although that's a bad idea as you lower battery life in the long run ).

Most I've read about are 200-250 pictures or about 2 hours. That's the one thing that has put me off most, is how quickly these batteries go down. Granted, cameras these days have so many effects, that's probably what does it, but I'm not used to these rechargeable batteries either. My phone lasts about a week, though I don't get very many calls. My iPod Touch lasts... well, I don't use it often and I don't take it down to 0. My laptop is always plugged in. Are these cameras going to have comparable battery life?

Great indoor performance (most cameras do fine outdoors, so that's implied)

Not on a P&S.

As for outdoors, most cameras do outdoors in good light , but when the light goes down and you are forced to raise ISO all P&S cameras are poor. Ones with larger sensors ( e.g. S95, LX5 ) do better than the average P&S with a smaller sensor, but they're not anywhere near a DSLR or large sensor mirrorless camera like the Olympus E-PL1.

Some cameras these days seem to tout great indoor performance, but the only reviewer I've seen that was very happy with his indoor performance was with the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-TX7. Which has a touch screen and probably eats the battery life.

Great color

Very subjective. Depends on the viewer, the scene and the intent of the photographer. No two people have exactly the same idea of this.

Colour is adjustable to taste, as are many other image parameters. Choosing the right white balance is also important here. Please don't make the common mistake that colour is absolute and that there's "accurate" colour. Colour is something you use to convey mood, and there are limited circumstances where accuracy is important.

Oh, I know there is no one true color, everyone sees color differently, but I was reading about certain cameras that give a washed out or neutral look. These camera pictures looked great on the LCD, but when put on the computer they weren't as good.

CMOS sensor (might not be as important)

Can't image why people still think this is important. Totally irrelevant.

I was under the impression a CMOS improves low light performance and makes the camera all around quicker.

Optical image stabilization

Why optical ? In practice on a P&S it makes no difference.

As far as I know, digital seems to suck. Does it? I know digital zoom sucks.

At least 640x480 30 FPS video

Everything should do that.

Yeah, my current camera from 2007 (Kodak Easyshare C613) does 15 FPS, mono, .MOV files, hahaha.

--
StephenG

 

[Demonkunga]

Several of your criteria are INCOMPLETELY SPECIFIED... Using open ended unbounded criteria opens the door to subjective responses.

It is difficult to get agreement on BEST of anything, be it cars, cameras, or canoes.

This is true. What is best for someone else may not be best for me, but I need to know others opinions at this stage because I can't make up my mind myself. There are just way too many choices. And I keep finding cons to my choices I do like, which makes things even harder.

My favorites at this point are:
Samsung TL350
Sony DSC HX5
Samsung HZ10W
Canon PowerShot SX210 IS
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX9
Sony Cybershot WX9

 

[Deleted1929]

Honestly, Canon should probably be my preference, they seem to know what they're doing with cameras ....Also, I like the interface of the Canon, Sony and Samsungs. Not so much the Panasonic and Nikon.

Well I like Canon's too for P&S. Panasonic had, I thought, a very strong reputation for user friendly interfaces.

What size pocket ? Shirt ? Jacket ? Jeans ?

Jeans

OK, that's pretty much the ultra-compacts.

The Canon S95 is possibly out of budget, but it's probably the best choice.

Most I've read about are 200-250 pictures or about 2 hours. That's the one thing that has put me off most, is how quickly these batteries go down.

Well you'd probably get 200-250 shot as a minimum from any P&S if you don't use flash a lot.

No idea where you got two hours from. Basically you'll get your 200+ shots from a single charge and you can take a year to do it if you want. Modern batteries retain charge for very long periods.

If you have used AA Alkaline batteries in a camera then, yes, those have a pitiful life. However P&S ultra compacts use Li-ion batteries ( like laptops but smaller ) and if you have a camera with AA's then use rechargeable AA NiMh Hybrids.

Some cameras these days seem to tout great indoor performance, but the only reviewer I've seen that was very happy with his indoor performance was with the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-TX7. Which has a touch screen and probably eats the battery life.

If you search for posts on low light compacts you'll get the usual suspects : the Canon S95 and G12, Olympus XZ-1, Samsung TL-500 ( EX1 ) and Panasonic LX5.

Oh, I know there is no one true color, everyone sees color differently, but I was reading about certain cameras that give a washed out or neutral look. These camera pictures looked great on the LCD, but when put on the computer they weren't as good.

Typically this can a result of different things :

• Your average computer user has a display that is not calibrated ( adjusted ) properly to display photographic images. Usually contrast and brightness are well off what they need to be. The LCD display on the camera, although not perfect, will be better than most users' displays.

• People take photos into light or with light coming from the side. This ( with most lenses ) will cause a reduction in contrast. Simply avoiding "contra light" and/or shading the lens can do wonders.

• Pixel peeping. Viewing images at 100% on a computer screen, which is normally equivalent to wall sized prints. Pointless because a normal print, even a large one, won't show any of the "problems" people see at these magnifications.

• Noise reduction. Images from most cameras are processed to remove noise, but the process just guesses what is noise and what should be there instead of the noise. Too much noise reduction can reduce color saturation and detail. As you increase ISO you'll get more noise and some makers make very aggressive use of noise reduction at high ISO ( and low ISO in some cases ), which is counter-productive.

I was under the impression a CMOS improves low light performance and makes the camera all around quicker.

Nope. It has specific functionality which is useful for video with large sensor cameras. It is irrelevant for P&S cameras. Makers often make wild claims about their pet technologies, but these can be ignored as pure nonsense usually.

Optical image stabilization

Why optical ? In practice on a P&S it makes no difference.

As far as I know, digital seems to suck. Does it? I know digital zoom sucks.

There is a type of stabilization called sensor stabilization . The sensor is physically moved to compensate for movement. Optical stabilization moves the lens ( or part of it ). Digital is a not-very-effective method where no physical action is made to compensate, and they try and estimate the mathematical effect of movement and reverse it. Digital stabilization also sometimes refers to just raising ISO so shutter speed can be raised. On a P&S neither are particularly desirable.

However sensor or optical stabilization are both very effective.

Yeah, my current camera from 2007 (Kodak Easyshare C613) does 15 FPS, mono, .MOV files, hahaha.

You'd have no trouble beating 15 FPS !

--
StephenG

 

[Demonkunga]

Well you'd probably get 200-250 shot as a minimum from any P&S if you don't use flash a lot.

No idea where you got two hours from. Basically you'll get your 200+ shots from a single charge and you can take a year to do it if you want. Modern batteries retain charge for very long periods.

That's helpful. I'll try not to worry about battery life then.

If you search for posts on low light compacts you'll get the usual suspects : the Canon S95 and G12, Olympus XZ-1, Samsung TL-500 ( EX1 ) and Panasonic LX5.

None of those seem to be ultra compact. They all list as Pro Digicams. At one point in my search for cameras, I wanted to tinker with manual settings and other interesting features, but to be ultra compact, with a point and shoot, most emit manual controls, which I'm willing to deal with because there are other awesome features baked into the software to combat this. Yeah, I wouldn't be able to do all the special DSLR-like things that manual controls give, but I can fake them.

Typically this can a result of different things :

• Your average computer user has a display that is not calibrated ( adjusted ) properly to display photographic images. Usually contrast and brightness are well off what they need to be. The LCD display on the camera, although not perfect, will be better than most users' displays.

• People take photos into light or with light coming from the side. This ( with most lenses ) will cause a reduction in contrast. Simply avoiding "contra light" and/or shading the lens can do wonders.

• Pixel peeping. Viewing images at 100% on a computer screen, which is normally equivalent to wall sized prints. Pointless because a normal print, even a large one, won't show any of the "problems" people see at these magnifications.

• Noise reduction. Images from most cameras are processed to remove noise, but the process just guesses what is noise and what should be there instead of the noise. Too much noise reduction can reduce color saturation and detail. As you increase ISO you'll get more noise and some makers make very aggressive use of noise reduction at high ISO ( and low ISO in some cases ), which is counter-productive.

So I shouldn't worry about color, another thing off my mind.

Nope. It has specific functionality which is useful for video with large sensor cameras. It is irrelevant for P&S cameras. Makers often make wild claims about their pet technologies, but these can be ignored as pure nonsense usually.

Add that to the list of no worries.

There is a type of stabilization called sensor stabilization . The sensor is physically moved to compensate for movement. Optical stabilization moves the lens ( or part of it ). Digital is a not-very-effective method where no physical action is made to compensate, and they try and estimate the mathematical effect of movement and reverse it. Digital stabilization also sometimes refers to just raising ISO so shutter speed can be raised. On a P&S neither are particularly desirable.

However sensor or optical stabilization are both very effective.

Most cameras I've been looking at either have optical or optical/digital. I don't think I've seen one in my price range with this sensor, but it sounds nice.

@@@@@@@

At the end of it all, I think what I really want is an ultra compact that can be in my pocket wherever I am. Yeah, I have a $80 cellphone that I can't take my crappy 640x480 pictures off of and I have a 2nd gen iPod Touch. What I don't have, is a camera to catch stuff at a whim.

As I said earlier, my favorites at this point are: Sony DSC HX5, Canon PowerShot SX210 IS, Samsung HZ10W, Samsung TL350, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX9 and Sony Cybershot WX9. The first 3 are "travel zooms" the last 3 are "compacts." I'm using http://snapsort.com/ a lot by the way.

 

[Demonkunga]

The Canon PowerShot SD1400 IS is looking really nice as far as compactness goes. It's simple, it's cheap and my mom has a Canon PowerShot A530, so I'm familiar with them. But then I run across crap like this http://www.amazon.com/review/R3SVS2FA52XS9J/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3SVS2FA52XS9J Ugh :\ I just can't win, haha.

 

[Demonkunga]

The Canon PowerShot SD1400 IS is looking really nice as far as compactness goes. It's simple, it's cheap and my mom has a Canon PowerShot A530, so I'm familiar with them. But then I run across crap like this http://www.amazon.com/review/R3SVS2FA52XS9J/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3SVS2FA52XS9J Ugh :\ I just can't win, haha.

Though on the flipside... http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SD1400IS-Stabilized-Black/product-reviews/B0035FZJJ4/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar judging by the amount of good reviews vs bad ones, I think those people are just expecting too much out of it. It sounds great to me.

 

[GoNuts]

Hi guys, I've been looking for a camera online for the past 3-4 days now. As I'm sure you know, there are a TON of cameras out there and deciding between them can be difficult. Based on what I'm searching for, can any of you recommend anything? It helps if you've used the camera yourself, too.

Looking for:
Less than $300

Canon, Sony, or Samsung (though if you feel another could be better suited, recommend it)
Compact enough to fit in a pocket
Great battery life and possibly fast charge time
Great indoor performance (most cameras do fine outdoors, so that's implied)
Great color
CMOS sensor (might not be as important)
Optical image stabilization
At least 640x480 30 FPS video

Obviously there will be pros and cons to any camera. I'm looking for one where I won't care about the cons.

I'll be sure to add anything I forgot, in additional comments.

I've found http://snapsort.com and http://dpreview.com to be of major help through all this, yet I still can't make a great decision, so I'm asking for your input and recommendations. Thank you!

Hi,

Having used them extensively, I can positively recommend a refurbished Canon Powershot S95 or S90, depending on your budget. Should cover your requirements (except for the CMOS sensor one ... here it is CCD, which shouldn't matter really).

 

[thomas30]

Hi Buddy, These are the 2 Camera which is in your budget of under $300 and is very good for advance uses.

NIKON COOLPIX S8100 ($253.69)
Nikon Coolpix S1100pj Digital ($250)

The Price may vary as i have considered the price of amazon but they are under $300.

Hope this will help you.

 

[Wachti]

The best choice: Read this and think about it.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

 

[Cailean Gallimore]

Absolutely brilliantly observed.

The best choice: Read this and think about it.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

 

[Demonkunga]

The best choice: Read this and think about it.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

That was great! It most definitely sounds like the average person!