camera buying shy

June 13, 2008 1:41 PM

I need a new digital camera. Don't roll your eyes. I do need some help.

I am looking for something that is fairly compact, costs less than $500, and has a decent zoom. I had a canon elph that recently died on me, but I was really frustrated with the zoom on it, it was really crappy.

I generally take snaps of family and friends - lots of children - but I also sew and would like to capture some of the detail in my work.

Any and all advice is welcome! thank you!

posted by chickaboo to media & arts (18 comments total)

The Lumix line of cameras by Panasonic have very good lenses and high zoom numbers depending on what size you buy. Highly recommended and competitively priced.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2008

Digital Photography Review has some pretty comprehensive reviews, and a buying guide to boot.

You might also look at Imaging Resource for some good advice.
posted by ZakDaddy at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The Canon SD1000 is at a very reasonable price point, is reasonably solid, and has a setting for "action" (kids/pets) shots. 3x optical, 2x (or 3?) digital zoom.

The quality of the pictures are good, but the old 6 megapixel ones were better than the current 7/8/9 cameras.
posted by porpoise at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2008

FYI, there are two issues with a big zoom on a compact camera.

1: It will make the camera bigger, too big for your pocket usually. This may or may not be an issue for you.

2: It is hard to get sharp photos with a compact camera zoomed in 5x to 10x. The camera has a tiny sensor, and the aperture will be smaller when zoomed in. This translates to less light hitting the sensor, and longer shutter speeds. So, unless it's a bright, sunny day and you're outside, you will have blurry photos. My dad was extremely disappointed every time he used the long range of his 10x zoom Olympus "compact" camera.

Since your price range is ~$500, you have a choice. Stay with the compact cameras that are easily portable, and settle for 3x or 4x zoom. Or, get a low end digital SLR, which are just barely in the ~$500 range now, and have a bulkier camera with much greater capabilities. (Bigger sensor with high ISO capabilities, interchangeable lenses, etc.)

Just a thought.
posted by knave at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2008

You might want to look into some of the super zoom cameras. You can't go wrong with:

Nikon P80
Panasonic FZ18
Canon S5

I have the Panasonic FZ8, the predecessor to the FZ18, and it's worked very well for me, plus it comes with Leica glass, and you can't go wrong with that. You can take detailed pictures as close as 1 cm.
posted by sanka at 2:05 PM on June 13, 2008

Seconding the Lumix line - my FZ50 is my dream-come-true camera.

knave at 4:57 PM on June 13 noted:
2: It is hard to get sharp photos with a compact camera zoomed in 5x to 10x. The camera has a tiny sensor, and the aperture will be smaller when zoomed in.

Happily, this is not a problem with the FZ50! It has two levels of motion-correction in the image - pretty good, and real good (not the official(tm) names). I think they only kept the older, "pretty good" correction mode because it was easy (just another software option), and were afraid some current users would bitch if it disappeared. The newer mode is excellent at motion correction - at the widest angle zoom, I've handheld a decent shot at 1/8 second, and a good shot at 1/15 (without resorting to bracing my elbows on something). And I can hand-hold out to the longest zoom, and still get a decent shot.

Naturally, for the best shots, you'll still need to steady the camera under such conditions, but the correction is really pretty awesome.

Most of the reviews harp on its one weak spot - somewhat high noise at the highest two ASA ("film speed") settings. Eh. When I'm reduced to using one of those settings, I am willing to tolerate some noise - dusk forest shots, for instance. 98% of the time I never need to change the ASA anyway, and then the noise is about as good as anything else on the market.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:43 PM on June 13, 2008

you said you're looking to capture the detail in your sewing work and that canon zoom was crappy. by zoom do you mean macro mode? if you're looking to zoom in on small things, all of these cameras should be the same ... if you set the right options.

my personal preference is for canon point and shoots. 870IS, SD1100IS in the elph line. and A720IS or the S5IS in the bigger ranges.

this opinionated review seems jive with me too: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
posted by maulik at 2:58 PM on June 13, 2008

We love our fuji finepix e900, mainly for snapshots of kids, and video of kids. I'm about to mefimail you a link to some examples of pictures we've taken with it. It has an easily accessible macro mode that I've used for closeups of kid artwork. I think we got it because consumer reports ranked it highly. We also had whatever the previous version of it was (the e600?), and liked that as well.
posted by selfmedicating at 4:39 PM on June 13, 2008

Thirding the Panasonic Lumix line. I have the big and fat near SLR...I think it was like $350 and it shoots anything I could want from up close macros to rather far away.
posted by fieldtrip at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2008

fieldtrip what do you mean near SLR??

I admit some of these answers are greek to me,. I wish I knew more...
thanks for the ideas I will look into some of these... and if you have more ideas keep them coming
posted by chickaboo at 5:36 PM on June 13, 2008

none of these seem to be SLR recommendations - is it possible to get an SLR for$500 or less?
posted by chickaboo at 5:39 PM on June 13, 2008

I am surprised you hated the Elph. Every pro photographer I know loves those things for spare/pocket cameras, and every one claims it's the optics/lenses that make them great.

Digital zoom is useless crap: I wish it was illegal to advertise calling it the word "zoom."

I have both an older Elph (S500, 5MP) and a bigger S-2. They're both pretty great.
posted by rokusan at 6:13 PM on June 13, 2008

I enjoy photo.net for all things camera related.
posted by mcarthey at 6:28 PM on June 13, 2008

chickabooPoster: "none of these seem to be SLR recommendations - is it possible to get an SLR for$500 or less?"

It is possible, but probably not a new one. Look for a used model, though. My fiancee got a Nikon D50 practically new because the owner wanted to go to the D80 right away. She has example photography on her Flickr photostream.

The killer expense for SLRs is lenses, though. You might get a used SLR with a decent general-purpose lens, and if you want to then try macro photography you can buy what are called macro 'filters' (link goes to ebay, but the auction has nothing to do with me), which simply screw onto the end of the lens and cost less than $40. They do a pretty good job, too.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 7:09 PM on June 13, 2008

The killer expense for SLRs is lenses, though.

Of course, the upshot is that you accumulate lenses over time. A Nikon D50 (or D40) will be a totally serviceable camera for the foreseeable future. As money allows, over time, you can add lenses to your stable.

Chickaboo, it's hard to keep it under $500 for the SLR, but you can do it. Nikon D40 at Amazon for $465. It doesn't come with a big zoom lens, like you want though. You'd have to get a bigger lens later. Also, there are technical considerations when looking at SLRs, like lens compatibility, so I wouldn't make the purchase lightly. Skim through the 38 other questions about SLRs first.

Don't get pushed up into an SLR if that's not what you want though. I'm just trying to answer the questions you had. Good luck!
posted by knave at 7:28 PM on June 13, 2008

posted by chickaboo at 8:39 PM on June 13
I admit some of these answers are greek to me,. I wish I knew more...

FWIW, most of what you don't understand in the above comments probably won't be important to you... it concerns advanced features you won't use, if you don't appreciate their use.

As someone mentioned, for up-close work you want the macro feature, which is very different from the zoom - it typically works best at the wide angles, not the telephoto angles.

none of these seem to be SLR recommendations - is it possible to get an SLR for$500 or less?

Yes, it's possible, but if you don't understand many of the terms used above, an SLR is probably far more complicated than you want or need. Stick with a good digital zoom non-SLR.

HTH.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:32 PM on June 13, 2008

I just picked up a Canon G9 as a pocket camera, and its fantastic. Its on the bigger side as far as point and shoots go, but its got every feature you'd ever want, its very responsive and solidly built. It may even get some use in my day to day professional work.

But - if you go for a dslr, it IS possible to get one well within your budget. I paid for most of the G9 with the sale of an almost brand new Canon 10D - an older but still totally useful camera that can be had for less than $400.
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:03 PM on June 13, 2008

I also have a G9 - rugged and capable. Definitely worth a look in this price range.
posted by rotifer at 10:25 AM on June 14, 2008