Looking for digital camera- I know pretty much next to nothing about them

[CaZeek]

Hello everyone. I know this doesn't have too much to do with video, but I trust these boards

I don't really know anything about digital cameras. I would like a nice camera, preferably nice resolution (though I don't know what is standard). If there are some cool features you think are really good to have that come on some, please let me know. Obviously I don't want to waste money, but money is meant to be spent, so I don't want to save money to buy a piece of crap.

Basically, all suggestions appreciated!

[InXess]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
http://www.dvspot.com/

all the info is here, set your price level and go from there

[redwudz]

What kind of camera? Video or still? Assuming still as video has already been mentioned, http://www.steves-digicams.com/ is my favorite site. Lots of good info there and many reviews.

Then: What do you want to use it for? Give us a little more info.

[edDV]

Here's a good beginners guide. "Dave's Picks" steers you to a good camera based on your intended use. Once you get a short list of models, check the user reviews at places like epinions.com.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM

[jagabo]

If you're talking still camera this site has in-depth reviews:

http://www.dpreview.com

[isogonic]

how to buy a digital camera:

http://www.pcworld.com/howto/bguide/0,guid,12,00.asp

digital camera finder and more guides:

http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,1874,5,00.asp

[Craig Tucker]

Really depends on what your requirements are, I can reccomend the Sony DCS-T5 as an ultra compact camera as I have recently bought one. One of my main requirements was that it was very small and would easily slip into my pocket. However you may have a completely different set of requirements to me.

[CaZeek]

Wow, thanks guys, I'll will try to weed through all the info and get back to you. I did mean a "still" yes, sorry for the ambiguity.

[jagabo]

I like the cameras with stabilized 12x optical zoom. Like the Panasonic Lumix FZ5 and FZ7, Canon Powershot S2 IS, and Sony DSC H1. All in the US$300 to $500 range. They won't fit in your shirt pocket but the extreme zoom is there when you need it.

[redwudz]

I thought that might be the case that you were looking for a still camera.

Just my opinion of what to look for:

Megapixels: 4 or 5 is right for most of us. More for professionals.

Battery life and type: I bought 8 Nikons recently that can use regular AA batteries because we may not access to a charger in an emergency. If you get a regular camera, be sure to get an extra battery or two. A good place for extra batteries: http://sterlingtek.com/index.html

The flash card, size and type: Type isn't as important as the prices of most are fairly even. Size, go for 512MB, they're cheap, two if you can afford it and you'll have enough capacity for about anything. You might want to get a card reader that plugs into your USB port. The photos download faster that way and it saves the camera battery.

If you are new to photography, many cameras are point and shoot. Some are more complex to operate. The review sites listed are good for this info.

Buy a good carrying case. I use padded LowePro cases. In the case, the camera can survive a drop of 5 feet onto concrete with no damage. It happens. http://www.lowepro.com/

Most cameras come with some software. But this freeware program is nice for a quick color/contrast adjustment.

http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/enhancer.htm

For more professional editors, 'Photoshop Elements' is affordable or high end, 'Photoshop' $$.

With most digital cameras being small and easy to use, you can take them with you everywhere, take a lot of pictures and have fun with them.

[CaZeek]

Canon PowerShot A610, Kodak Easyshare 730, Panasonic DMC-LZ2, Panasonic DMC-LZ5S

I've come up with these so far.. I would like to be able to take pictures of things that are not too far away (like say a motherboard), and be able to pick out tiny details too. Is 5.3 megapixels enough for that?

[redwudz]

5.3 MP should be plenty. They continually increase the resolution of the average cameras. 7MP used to be the very high end, but now there are consumer cameras with that resolution. I would lean toward the Canon myself from the ones you listed. I have a Canon 4MP Digital Elph and have been happy with it for over two years. It it has a stainless steel case, so it's pretty much indestructible. No problems with it at all. Heavy, though.

Take a look at some of the Nikon's also.

There are so many good digital cameras on the market, it's a little bewildering at first. Take your time to get what you want or need.

[SingSing]

Canon PowerShot A610, Kodak Easyshare 730, Panasonic DMC-LZ2, Panasonic DMC-LZ5S

Panasonic LZ-2 was known to have a lot picture noise above iso80. Is LZ5S better ?

[lordsmurf]

I would only buy a Canon or Fujifilm camera, if you're wanting a consumer point-and-shoot (P&S) digital camera. Canon Elph models are extremely nice for P&S.

If you want more advanced SLR models (detachable lenses on a body), I would only go with Nikon or Canon. Fujifilm also makes Nikon-compatible bodies that work fine. The Nikon D50 is quite affordable these days, almost amazing how cheap dSLRs have gotten.

MP (megapixels) is mostly a marketing gimmick these days. The glass and CCD/CMOS is far more important, as are the filters that keep away aliasing and moire. Anything above 2.5MP is generally fine. The professional Nikon D1 dSLR is "only" 2.74MP, but I guarantee it can outperform some wussy little P&S that touts "8MP" or whatever. And while Zeiss lenses are good, don't get caught up in propaganda that they are the "best" lenses, Nikkor and Canon glass is just as nice, if not more. The only time I see Zeiss make a difference is in medium format film/slide.

[SingSing]

I have many fuji digicams and like them for a very long time.

Until I found out they went xD ( costly memory ) and still offer video without audio on most of ther point and shoot.

canon digicam does not do well in-door compare to Fuji, I bought one and returned it.

Panasonics cam look good on paper, but maybe they use CMOS sensor and end up noisy than others.

[lordsmurf]

canon digicam does not do well in-door compare to Fuji, I bought one and returned it.

You must have been using an older model.

Canon uses a proprietary image processing system called DIGIC (now DIGIC II) that is quite impressive. The Canon ZR-series DV cameras, and the "Powershot" and "A" and "Elph" series still cameras, all have it. Other series may have it, but these are the only ones I'm familiar with. They actually perform well in low light (such as indoor shots), and have a very low noise ratio or moire problem. I've been incredibly impressed with these in the past, something that does not happen often with me and non-pro equipment. They also all offer a lot of nice features.

Anytime I see people requesting good non-pro shooting equipment, I almost always point them towards Canon. With pro equipment, Canon has some nice offerings, but so do others.

[SingSing]

Fuji new line of cameras can shoot even better under low light, and with shaking hands. Pansonic and Sony are going the same direction, with ther cameras.

I picked up a canon A520 ( which still a current model ) last xmas, and found out the camera is too small to handle, and does not do wel indoor/low light, and exchane it for a fuji. I may take a look at a canon A610 again.

[edDV]

One important feature for me is the wide end of the optical zoom range. That is, without the need of an aux converter. The winner for the small pocket cameras last I looked was the Canon Powershot S-60,70,80 series. The camera body itself is a bit larger, but the wide (28 - 100 mm equiv.) lens is nice to have. Most others are limited to 35mm or higher at the wide end of the zoom.

[kisrum]

I took the broad advice to get Canon or Nikon cuz they're presumably camera makers, not electronics companies. My point and shoot Canon A620 is great but it's red eye reduction sucks. Wish I'd paid more attention to that in the reviews I read. Don't know anything about SLRs.

[redwudz]

The 'red eye' problem is mostly because the light source (Usually flash) is in line with the lens and the eye that is reflecting back. Some cameras have a 'pre-flash' to make the iris of the eye contract, lessening the effect. I find them a little irritating myself and they use up the battery faster. Having the person not look directly at the lens or using a photo editor to remove the effect works fine for me.

[hrlslcbr]

I have a Canon A610 and love it!
It's a 5MP camera with lots of options and a basic point-and-shoot mode (for the unexperienced). It's very fast, has excellent quality, and a good macro mode. Oh, and it uses AA batteries so there's no need to wait for a battery to get charged .
Hope this helps.

[CaZeek]

Thanks for all the information again- much more than I expected!

I've refined my search to a few choices:
Canon S2 IS: $350
Canon A610: $215
Fuji S5200: $271

I'm leaning towards the Fuji, but everyone raves about the Canons. The S2 IS is relatively expensive, but has nice zoom features. The A610 is less expensive, but it only has a 4X Opt, 4X Digital zoom. The Fuji has a great zoom, and is much cheaper than the S2 IS. All the rest of the specs look pretty much the same.

Thanks again everyone.

By the way, what's going on LS- long time no (chat?)

[InXess]

5 Meg is Ok but i would go notch higher to 7/8 Meg like Canon S80 in compact cams...

[Craig Tucker]

I am waiting for the day when I wont need a dedicated camera at all, and I dont think its that far away.

Sony Ericsson K790, with 3.2MP cybershot camera, due out later this year.

[lordsmurf]

Digital zoom tends to be totally worthless past about 2-3x. Only worry about the optical zoom. Also know that "2x" or whatever means nothing if you don't know what the base number is.

I won't lie, Canon costs more. But it is a better camera. Fuji cameras are not a bad runner-up. But you've narrowed the list down to some fine candidates, so take your time, use them at the store (demos) and buy one that you like.

I would also suggest AA over any other kind of batteries, given the choice. Those little CR123 bastards are expensive (~$5 each) and die fast. Compare that to a 40-pack of AA's for $10 from the dollar store that last plenty long. Don't get sucked into buying the supposed "longer life" lithiums for several bucks each. Just buy generic AA's that are alkaline, you don't need to worry about anything else. This is a secondary consideration, don't base the main purcahse off of this.

5 Meg is Ok but i would go notch higher to 7/8 Meg like Canon S80 in compact cams...

MP doesn't mean anything. It's really nothing more than marketing buzz words these days. Throwing extra pixels at an image will not do anything if the glass is inferior and the digital imaging sensors allow for various noise (and there are several kinds of noise to choose from!).

[SingSing]

canon digicam does not do well in-door compare to Fuji, I bought one and returned it.

You must have been using an older model. Canon uses a proprietary image processing system called DIGIC (now DIGIC II) that is quite impressive.

My take is the processor in the camera is responsible for the speed and features of the unit. The true purpose of the camera is taking good pictures and that is based on CCD ( sensitivies to light and depth of color ). Canon must have pretty good CCD sensors, but they don't talk too much about it. That's why I want to look at Canon A610, which has a bigger len.

By the way, Canon is the no.1 electronics product company by sales/volume. in Japan, bigger than Sony and Panasonic.

[ozymango]

From my own experience I totally back up everything Lord Smurf says here.

My situation: I've got a Canon A520 and an older Fuji 2600. The Canon's got 4mp, the Fuji 2.1mp (it's a few years old). I get to play around with a lot of other digital cameras at work (I drool over the Canon 11mp beast down the hall), and frankly it's hard to go wrong with any decent digital camera nowadays but I love the Canons.

Here's why: The color accuracy of the Canon sensor/electronics is extremely high. Fuji's is up there, too, but my wife shoots gemstone images as part of her business, and we must've gone through testing every camera out there to get those @#$# stones to come out right (color-wise) in a camera and the Canon's just nailed it. Sure, this is an extreme case but my wife works with some $$$ gems and you're trying to sell them by giving your customer photos that show the true color, light, sparkle, clarity -- and you'd be amazed at how subtle but important the differences between cameras can be.

Personally, I'm not quite that picky myself (can't tell a topaz from an aquamarine!) but she can tell, and her customers can tell, and sure you can color balance any photograph if you take the time. But the Canon's do it right out of the box.

Also for me, AA batteries are what I want for power because we travel a lot and sure you can get digital camera batteries almost everywhere nowadays if you lose one or it dies on you, but it's a heck of a lot easier to find AAs on short notice!

I also love the Fuji (even though it's old and only 2mp) and the newer Fuji's were a close second to the Canon's. But I just really love everything about that little Canon camera, it's really well thought out.

Oh, and get something with at least a 3x optical zoom. Digital zoom is truly worthless -- you get the same results, actually you get better results, by cropping in Photoshop compared to digital zoom.

[lordsmurf]

My take is the processor in the camera is responsible for the speed and features of the unit. The true purpose of the camera is taking good pictures and that is based on CCD

The processor does not have much to do with speed or features. There are other chips to handle that. The image processor interprets the raw CCD-acquired data and then balances it against a library of knowledge on how to handle noise and color, among other attributes. On some of the dSLRs (like Nikon D1), you can even upgrade the library for about $100, every couple of years. This is why cameras take a while to process and write an image. The only reason dSLRs can take multi fps is because they have big buffers installed.

[SingSing]

Thanks for all the information again- much more than I expected!

I've refined my search to a few choices:
Canon S2 IS: $350 Canon A610: $215 Fuji S5200: $271

I'm leaning towards the Fuji, but everyone raves about the Canons. The S2 IS is relatively expensive, but has nice zoom features. The A610 is less expensive, but it only has a 4X Opt, 4X Digital zoom. The Fuji has a great zoom, and is much cheaper than the S2 IS. All the rest of the specs look pretty much the same.

I just look at the A610 and and S2IS today, and came to the same conclusion. The Fuji 5200 is better than both of these canon. I will ended up paying extra for xD, but save on camera, and end up with a better camera.

[InXess]

Lordsmurf has brought some good points that have to be considered besides the quality of the output like batteries type (and lifespan), camera processing power (not only speed but color accuracy, noise handling), size of camera (small tend to be more handy and what follows yield more pictures), quality of housing (!), finally optics that has to produce good pictures without geometrical distortion with minimal chromatic aberration (purple/green fringing - very annoying).

I'd disagree with the notion that :

MP doesn't mean anything. It's really nothing more than marketing buzz words these days. Throwing extra pixels at an image will not do anything if the glass is inferior and the digital imaging sensors allow for various noise (and there are several kinds of noise to choose from!).

It is usually so, that better better optics on more capable cameras is usually accompanied by a good processor. Optically sound cameras are not cheap and deliver boy, beautiful pictures. If the resolution allows you to appreciate it. I'm totally for more MPs even in case of amateur cameras. 35mm film offers about 15-18 MPs resolution so this is not too much to ask for (this is a setback). Sure for 4x6 prints 5MPs is OK but this is no mystery that better medium will deliver better picture and that means more MPs. Drawback is the price a buyer is willing to pay. I often use D70 and lately D200 and picture quality can't be even compared to an average 5MP's camera. Keep in mind 300 bucks camera is just that: a 300 bucks camera. If you see a better one you usually won't go back to the old one (similar to DVD and VCR scenario). You need to see AND use it though to know the feeling. Lordsmurf's comment is typical to people with small real life exposure to digital photography (unless we talk about really El-cheapo cameras).
As to Craig Tucker's suggestion to go with a cellphone... well, what a joke(!), this is probably what Lordsmurf had in mind.