honeyisfunny wrote:

DazeyDiver wrote:I am currently enjoying the shit out of this one.

- Under $200

- 7.1 MP

- comes w/ free bag and 1 GB SD memory card

Liking! Thanks!

no problem. you seriously cannot go wrong with canon powershots. they're the only point and clicks actually worth a damn.

DazeyDiver wrote: you seriously cannot go wrong with canon powershots. they're the only point and clicks actually worth a damn.

+1

I've had and Elph and S45 over the years. Very reliable cameras with good picture quality.

+2 for the Canon powershot Elph. Great point and click Digital Camera. All of my friends are jealous of mine. My roomie is probably getting his own after borrowing mine for a weekend.

I have the A95, which is basically the same as the elph, but in a large case, with a few added features. it has the same chip etc.

anyway, my two sisters both got the dreaded E18 error on their canons. I haven't gotten it yet. There is a lot of speculation as to what causes the E18 error. some think it is rough handling, some think it is a design flaw.

nonetheless, it is a costly repair, which approaches the cost of a new camera.


my thoughts on canons:

they take excellent black and white photos. color is average. however, you can't expect too much with such a small lens.

If it wasn't for the E18 error, I wouldn't have any hesitation to recommend canon.

I'm going to echo the Powershot praise.

If I was going to recommend a camera, I'd recommend a second hand canon 350D. Not a Powershot. It's what I use, and it's all that you'll ever need. The later models in the series may sound tempting, but really you'd just be paying for features that you don't need. The extra specs don't make any difference, and if you look after your camera, you don't need it to automatically shudder to shake dust off the lens.

Unfortunately, it's still pretty expensive, but it's a great digital SLR for the cost. You'd probably want to buy a new lens, the one that comes with it in the box isn't impressive, which is why I suggest buying one second hand, where you could probably save money by not buying the lens, or buying a different lens altogether. Best battery life I've ever seen on a camera, even with excessive use of the flash, I can take regular pictures for well over a week before it'll need charging.

It doesn't use SD cards however. For this reason, I suggest you try out the Powershot that Tommy recommended. Which doesn't use a rechargeable batteries...

Perhaps, you can find a canon model that is somewhere between the two cameras, but I have no idea what that camera is. Just make sure you get an extra bulky looking camera. Those are hopelessly stylish right now.

Another vote for the Canons. I just bought my girlfriend her second Canon (in a 6 or 7 year space) and she likes it a lot. Other than the rechargeable battery thing, they'll do everything you could want a non-SLR to do.

And unless you want to print really large prints, don't pay extra for anything over 6 megapixels. You'll never need it.

I have a Canon A710-IS that I enjoy immensely.



It can be quite noisy when shooting in ISO 800 and the lens maximum wide angle is only 35mm (35mm equiv.), where I think a 28mm is always ideal and preferred. Overall, I think it has great features, with a good combination of manual control and auto settings. I was also able to get a underwater housing for it that was only $160 and goes down to 40 meters, which I don't think you could find for less money for any other camera. And, as a user of a Canon DSLR, the common control interface/layout was a big selling point too.

If you're going the SLR route, check ou the Nikon D50. It's a very good entry level kit. Has its own battery and takes SD cards.

My girlfriend has one and loves it. No problems in the year she's had it.

Whoops, looks like they replaced that wih the D40, same difference.

Sock OR Muffin? wrote:If you're going the SLR route, check ou the Nikon D50. It's a very good entry level kit. Has its own battery and takes SD cards.

My girlfriend has one and loves it. No problems in the year she's had it.

Whoops, looks like they replaced that wih the D40, same difference.

If you're going to spend the money on a digital SLR, I would strongly recommend you get one with a CMOS (or MMOS) sensor (instead of the typical CCD sensor type). The CMOS sensors are much more sensitive and give much lower noise performance in the 800-3200 ISO range. This translates roughly to grain and non-lens dependent sharpness.

Again, get a CMOS type camera. Canon and Olympus both make CMOS DSLR bodies.

geiginni wrote:

Sock OR Muffin? wrote:If you're going the SLR route, check ou the Nikon D50. It's a very good entry level kit. Has its own battery and takes SD cards.

My girlfriend has one and loves it. No problems in the year she's had it.

Whoops, looks like they replaced that wih the D40, same difference.

If you're going to spend the money on a digital SLR, I would strongly recommend you get one with a CMOS (or MMOS) sensor (instead of the typical CCD sensor type). The CMOS sensors are much more sensitive and give much lower noise performance in the 800-3200 ISO range. This translates roughly to grain and non-lens dependent sharpness.

Again, get a CMOS type camera. Canon and Olympus both make CMOS DSLR bodies.

But is there a major price difference? I was just recommending entry level stuff which the Nikons do well enough at 1600 ISO. Granted 3200 would be nice but not everyone needs the highest falutin' tech available. Most people wouldn't notice the difference. Where I work we have a D200 and even though it's a CCD, it does really well in low-light conditions which is what we use it for at least 50% of the time. Thanks for the info though! Good to know.