The best digital camera for around $200.00
June 18, 2010 9:01 AM   Subscribe

What is the best digital camera for under $200.

I'm looking for a digital camera that has good stabilization & semi fast shutter speed. I hate waiting for the camera to catch up to itself so I can take the next photo. I also will be taking some pictures at night, so i need something that won't come out grainy. I basically am looking for something easy to use (menu) and has good picture quality for someone who moves around a lot and likes to snap pictures in the moment. If anybody has any reviews or pros/cons of their digital camera experience, please let me know.

P.S. my first digital camera was the Nikon Coolpix 5600 and I hated it. Someone recommended the sony cybershot and I liked the panoramic mode on the W350, but I read that the night photos were not very good.
posted by sharkhunt to Technology (14 answers total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
I recommend the Canon Powershot line, although I don't think any point and shoot for under $200 will give you great night shots.
posted by demiurge at 9:09 AM on June 18, 2010


I always recommend the Canon PowerShot series. Browse through the reviews on that link.
posted by nitsuj at 9:09 AM on June 18, 2010


Get a Powershot you can put CHDK on.
posted by mhoye at 9:11 AM on June 18, 2010


Sony's use of non-standard memory is kind of ridiculous. It means you can move memory between cameras, and you can't use it as easily in standard readers. DPReview is a great site for camera reviews. They are geared more towards hardcore photographers (not necessarily 'pro') but the reviews are very in depth.

$200 is pretty cheap, you might want to look into getting a used camera with higher specs. For cameras that take good pictures at night, you'll want one with higher ISO settings, but that's a fundamentally difficult problem to solve.
posted by delmoi at 9:11 AM on June 18, 2010


I had a Panasonic TZ3, before I drowned it :(, and it was very good, even with low light. Better, I think, than the Canon powershot 870is I replaced it with. There are newer versions of that camera but it looks like you can get the TZ3 on ebay for pretty cheap, if you're willing to go second hand. It got an excellent review at DCRP, which I recommend generally for help choosing a camera. Also, wide angle wide angle wide angle! It makes such a difference!
posted by Salamandrous at 9:18 AM on June 18, 2010


this article from 2007 goes over some of the issues with high ISO on campact cameras. They liked fujifilm at the time and

This camera, theFujifilm Finepix F200 EXR. got a "highly recommended" score in 2009, which is their highest score. You can get a refurbished one today for just $229. It might not have all the gimicky features but it sounds like a pretty solid lowlight performer, and skimming the review it sounds like it has some technology options that aren't present in similarly priced cameras relating specifically to low-light situations.
posted by delmoi at 9:27 AM on June 18, 2010


Another vote for Canon Powershot - though note that outside the US the range is known by different names.
posted by Jofus at 9:33 AM on June 18, 2010


I recommend a Canon Powershot. I was previously using a Pentax Optio and it had horrible image stabilization, we're talking "be on a tripod at all times or else you'll have blury shots", let alone considering taking night shots. I upgraded to a Powershot SD1100IX which at that time was around $250CDN, so it should certainly be purchasable for under $200 now. I'm super happy with that camera, even without using the CHDK firmware.
posted by Meagan at 10:01 AM on June 18, 2010


I have the Fuji Finepix F200 EXR, my review is prominently on Amazon. The digital noise reduction turns everyone into a plastic version of themselves, especially at low ISO. The manual controls are welcome to a photo bug like myself, but otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

In that price range, it's Canon all the way, baby. Canon just released a compact camera especially for low ISO, but I don't know much about the specs and I hear it got mixed reviews. Anything in the powershot line should be good, though, especially the ubiquitous SD1100 IS.

On a night out of shooting in bars, the Canon outperformed the Fuji in nearly every respect. Better flash, faster auto-focus, better photos. It's also smaller.

If you're willing to spend a bit more, my coworker has a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 that's responsive & has decent low-light performance, though I don't know it well enough to recommend it personally.

Based on some facebook photos I saw, the Sony camera is very good at making people look good, but maybe it's just the photographer that's good at making people look good in photos.
posted by MesoFilter at 10:50 AM on June 18, 2010


Decent low-light photography and a fast shutter response does not exist at that price point. It sounds like you want digital SLR features in a compact camera for a low price. Anything at that price point is going to involve compromises, and you'll probably have to try a few out to see if there's one that fits you better than the others. I can't say much about pocket cameras: mine is a Canon SD780, which I bought for its size (it's my the-one-you-have-with-you camera); it's very poor in low light, as I expected it would be. But I mainly shoot with a Nikon D90, which is fast and great in low light (with the right lenses), but neither very cheap nor very small.

Image stabilization compensates for the blurriness caused by your hands shaking, not from long-exposure low-light photography. Graininess is a function of high ISOs and a small sensor, and you're really not going to get around that except by having a larger and/or more sensitive sensor.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:08 AM on June 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


Image stabilization compensates for the blurriness caused by your hands shaking, not from long-exposure low-light photography.

... hand shaking is more of a factor when taking a long exposure. Generally 1/60 of a second is the limit for shutter speed for a handheld capture.

Graininess is a function of high ISOs and a small sensor, and you're really not going to get around that except by having a larger and/or more sensitive sensor.

Agreed. Though they're doing a decent job getting more sensitive sensors on the market - lower pixel density, rearranging the electronics around the sensor, etc. In-camera noise reduction is a mixed bag, so I try to shoot RAW whenever possible.

3 factors affect low light performance - indeed, affect all exposures. ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed.

- Aperture: Buy a camera with a "Fast" lens. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 has a fast lens.

- ISO/Film Speed: Buy a camera with a good sensor. Sensor technology is improving all the time, so no specific recommendations here.

- Shutter Speed - this is where image stabilization comes in, keeping the shutter speed down to acceptable levels by either lens shift, CCD shift or bumping up the film speed. Find a camera with lens-shift and CCD shift image stabilization.
posted by MesoFilter at 11:41 AM on June 18, 2010


Low-light performance and refresh speed* are the primary differences between $200 cameras and $450+ cameras. I use a Powershot a590 and get fantastic pics, but like all $200 cameras, it sucks in low-light and is slow.

Basically, there is no camera that suits your desires because, if they had those features, they'd be more than $200. But the Powershots are probably as close as you're going to find. Also, you CAN get good low-light images from a Powershot, but you have to manually keep the ISO at it's lowest setting (which I think is 80, but might be 100) to keep the noise level down, and use a tripod.

*You say "shutter speed", but that's something different.
posted by coolguymichael at 12:07 PM on June 18, 2010


but you have to manually keep the ISO at it's lowest setting (which I think is 80, but might be 100) to keep the noise level down, and use a tripod.

To keep it at ISO 80 you're talking about 1 second+ exposure times in a dimly lit bar or cafe. A tripod will help you keep the walls from looking blurry, but all the people in the photo will come out as a wash of motion, like this photo of mine, which I think was a 4 second exposure.

The new Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS looks to be decent in low light situations, but MSRP is $350 and it only has a wide lens. This photo in particular looks really good for ISO1600. Examining the EXIF data, though and you'll see that it was 1/10 of a second exposure, which is to slow for a good hand-held exposure.
posted by MesoFilter at 1:15 PM on June 18, 2010


My always-with-me camera is the Canon S90, because it's small enough to be pocketable and doesn't do too badly at low-light scenes. (Plus it has a CHDK port.) However it's almost twice your $200 limit, and it's not very fast -- seems to take a noticeable amount of time from pressing "on" to shutter trip. (With my Canon 5D, there seems to be no delay from "on" to shutter firing -- it feels just like my film SLR cameras.)

If you're really serious about low-light scenes (no flash) and camera speed, you need an SLR and fast lens. You might be able to find a used Canon Rebel and 50/1.8 lens for not too much over $200.
posted by phliar at 4:04 PM on June 18, 2010


« Older Help me finish planning my Pride party   |   What is it? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.