Small digital camera

[Barry]

For vfm and features, look no further than the Panasonic Lumix range. Not a familiar name like Canon etc, but offer a lot more for the money. I have been very happy with my fz5 for the last 2 years and will be buying an fz18 when they are released next month.

[pe7e]

There's times when very high resolution images are essential i.e. producing images for print or similar, but for the average guy taking snapshots for his own enjoyment and viewing them on his computer screen (800x1200 pixel resolution by the way) then I stand by my original statement. The only time he's likley to use the extra resolution available, is if he crops a small segment of the picture and views it at full resolution.

[Julian2]

I bought a Ricoh Caplio R5 this year, does everything it's supposed to. Has a multiple shot with one press of the button option, good for action shots.

I spent a long time on the web, including asking advice here, in the end I got the camera that looked like the best deal on the day.

Just remember there's only a couple that are any good in low light situations.

[Neo]

There's times when very high resolution images are essential i.e. producing images for print or similar, but for the average guy taking snapshots for his own enjoyment and viewing them on his computer screen (800x1200 pixel resolution by the way) then I stand by my original statement. The only time he's likley to use the extra resolution available, is if he crops a small segment of the picture and views it at full resolution.

 

While your screen might be low resolution today, think 10 or 20 years down the road it could be dramatically higher and your image will be just a tiny square on the screen you have to squint at to make out, like say a youtube video. Not good.

 

But there's more to it than megapixels. Take quality over quantity. Jot down some cameras in your price range and check reviews at web sites mentioned earlier. Another one is http://www.dcresource.com

 

If the form factor results in a better likelihood of having it on you, that should also be weighed. If the camera is too big to have with you as often, then you miss the shot and so it's worthless in those instances.

 

[pe7e]

While your screen might be low resolution today, think 10 or 20 years down the road

 

Well you are absoluteley correct there, but you'll still be able to view your pics as you can today, just like you can expand a small pic to fit your screen, the picture resolution will stay the same. Even though they will have the technology too, I doubt manufacturers will increase the resolution of computer screens to much more than double what they are today since human eyesight won't be able to discern the improvement anyway and eyes aren't going to be upgraded anytime soon

[manaomaiminam]

All the comments here are helpful. I have owned/used several Canons, Nikons, Panasonic. Here are a few other things to consider.

 

They were all easy to use and produced good pictures although they varied in warmth or coolness of their colors. If the shops allow, take a few shots in the shop the get what appeals to your eye.

 

All the cameras in this range also take very decent movies up to 720 x 480, and the time is dependent on the size of the memory chip. If you plan to shoot any videos get an SD card minimum or 1 Gb, but preferably a 2 Gb card. Also the format of the movie will vary. Some produce Quicktime, some shoot AVI's or MP4's. If you plan to shoot movies and include them with say actual other videos, the format might influence your choice, dependent if you are editing on a PC or MAC base.

Example, if you shoot in Quicktime and say editing on a PC in Vegas, you will have to convert the Quicktime to another format and hence you will lose quality.

 

One contributor above suggested Nikon, Canon, or Olympus and then suggested cameras that take AAA batteries. I cannot speak for Olympus, but Nikon and Canon tend to use proprietary battery systems in all their cameras, not double or triple A's. I have bought offbrand batteries for these and generally have found them "not quite" as good, but acceptable depending on the savings. Panasonic varies--some of their cameras us standard batteries, some use proprietary batteries.

 

Since you said "small cameras", I highly suggest that after you do your research, etc., you go to a camera store and do a touch/feel test. I say this because some of the series of "small cameras", the "S" series in Nikon and some of the small Sony's (I just mention the ones I am familiar with), the shutter buttons are very slim and more conducive to smaller fingers, not big flat ones like mine. I have missed shots using my GF's Nikon "S" series simply because I didn't push the shutter button down cleanly. Don't get me wrong, these series take good pictures, it was simply the ergonomics that didn't fit for me.

 

Finally, most medium to high end cameras now have some type of "anti-shake" system, although some of the cheaper models do not. I would suggest you get a camera that has an "anti-shake" technology--you will have fewer throw-away photos. All of the brand names mentioned so far offer models with anti-shake technology, although that might vary as you down the model lines.

[Neo]

Even though they will have the technology too, I doubt manufacturers will increase the resolution of computer screens to much more than double what they are today since human eyesight won't be able to discern the improvement anyway

 

Actually a human eye needs far higher resolutions (and colors) than screens show today. Ever notice "stair stepping", the terminology for how a line staggers and you can see it go up by each dot? Fancy programs use a technoloy called anti-aliasing to hide this by blurring things with transition colors to make it appear smooth. It would take something like a 16 megapixel screen to be high enough resolution for the human eye not to notice stair stepping and eliminate the need for crude hacks like anti-aliasing or anisotropic rendering.

 

And while 16 million colors (24-bit color) may sound like plenty, there are only 256 reds for instance and the human eye can pick out more than that.

 

You can expand a small pic to fit the screen, but it is going to result in chunky pixelation. Today's high end systems are using displays with 4 megapixels and 32-bit color. It's a step in the right direction, but here's still a long way to go for technology to bridge the gap with the human eye. But gradually it is happening.

 

[cavanami]

I now use a Fuji f31d.

Most excellent.

 

Now they have a new model, 12 Mp

for about $299 USD.

Fuji FinePix F50fd Digital Camera

PRICE:

$299.95

 

http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=88584

 

[Nervous_Dog]

I see someone else mentioned the Mu 700 - this little pocket camera focuses at clit level, and also 10 meters underwater!!!!

 

Thats one hell of a spa!

 

Would have bought it but got the wife a Fujifilm Z5 a few weeks before I new of this underwater pocket marvel!

 

DOG

[keekwai]

Thanks to everyone for the replies!

 

Neo made the point about missing the shot because the form factor. That's exactly where I'm at with my current bulky camera. And pe7e is correct that I only view snapshots on a PC. Three megapixels would be plenty but as someone pointed out that might not even be an option with the quality cameras.

 

Those Canons that Mekong and Munchmaster mentioned are good looking cameras I had no idea they were getting so small: 91.2 x 59.6 x 28.2 mm (3.6 x 2.3 x 1.1 inch). That's a dinky little thing.

 

manaomaiminam, thanks for the lengthy post with lots of good info.

 

It looks like I'll be in the $300US range. It would be nice to be able to use regular batteries in a pinch but I don't know how much of a concern that really is with the newer cameras. My old Fuji sucks the juice out of batteries fast.