Best Fast and Ultra-Compact Digital Camera as of May, 2005

May 3, 2005 10:07 AM

Looking for an extremely fast and ulta compact digital camera for my traveling. I want to take as much photos as I can, I do not intend on printing them. I want a camera that could be slipped inside my pocket and be turned on quickly, to shoot a picture fast when I see something I want to remember. The price range can be anywhere up to $500, small, and minimal lag for on-the-road shooting.

I went to "Wolf Camera" to see some cameras hands-on. I tested the Sony DSC-T3 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX7, they were pretty fast and compact, I really like the image stabilizer on the DMC-FX7, but I didn't like the lens movement on power on/off, therefore the Sony DSC-T3 power on/off speed seem better, although for action photos the DMC-FX7 will probably do a better job.
Are there any other cameras I should consider? Please help me make the best choice.

posted by rafibodill to Shopping (28 answers total)

Check amazon, they have a closeout on the Canon SD-110, it's well under $200, and is 3 megapixels (plenty pixels enough for printing 8x11 pictures). I keep one in my coat pocket at all times, and have produced some nice pictures with them (post card quality even). I've gotten some decent night time pictures with it, but the conditions have to be perfect. 2x optical zoom isn't much, so it's not for nature shots.
posted by inthe80s at 10:20 AM on May 3, 2005

I just bought a Nikon CoolPix 5900 on a trip to Japan. It sounds like I was looking at the same range of cameras as you, so you might want to consider the Nikon. I won't buy Sony products any more: they're always sexy, but I've had poor long-term results with a lot of different things, even though I'm careful with tools and devices, and don't tend to abuse or break them.
I liked the Panasonic cameras (IIRC, they have Zeiss glass, which is generally good, but at that price point it may be nothing more than a branding ploy). However, I chose the Nikon because it felt better in my hand, had an optical viewfinder as well as an LCD screen (so you can see what you're shooting even if the LCD is washed out by bright light), and included rechargeable batteries (I think the lower Nikon models use AA cells).
After using it occasionally for a few weeks, I find that the user interface is pretty easy and the pictures are pretty good. I'd like to have more manual control (e.g. focus & aperture) but for a point-n-shoot, it's fine.
posted by spacewrench at 10:25 AM on May 3, 2005

Best answer: I just got a Canon SD-300. Very small, but very large LCD for the overall size. 4.0 MegaPixels. About $320 or so.

So far I've been loving it. It turns on and off pretty fast, and the interface operations are very easy to use.
posted by frufry at 10:26 AM on May 3, 2005

I have found MegaPixel's reviews very helpful in selecting a digital camera.
posted by terrapin at 10:29 AM on May 3, 2005

I would go for the Konica Minolta Dimage Xg. I bought the Lx (basically the same but the '03 model) and I love it. Quick start up time, clear pictures, and I can keep it in my pocket. The only drawback I have found with this camera (and I think characteristic of all ultra-compacts) is that they are bad in low light settings such as indoor and night events/parties.
posted by Dr_Octavius at 10:30 AM on May 3, 2005

I just got a Nikon 7900 for my upcoming vacation. I cant find a better cam. for the price, and I looked for 3 months.

just my .02
posted by photodegas at 10:31 AM on May 3, 2005

Best answer: Check out the Exilim line from Casio. The s-100 card camera is among the most compact around, while also being simple to use. I owned an older-generation Exilim and it was the ultimate party-camera: stashed anywhere, fired shots off in a hurry, and easy to hand to people to use without giving a tutorial.

Since you're not worried much about printing, I wouldn't get too caught up in megapixel performance, but rather how pocketable the camera is, since a camera left at home cause it's too bulky for your pocket is worthless.

For your spontaneous shooting requirements, I'd also aim for a camera that has minimal start-up and shutter release lag times. For this reason, you might consider a fixed-lens camera (the older Exilims, among others) since these can start up and shoot off a picture almost instantly. Trust me, nothing ruins a spontaneous moment like a digital camera that hesitates to fire off a shot 'cause it's fancy 5MP 4x Zoom lens is bouncing around trying to find a focus point before firing the shutter.

You can find something that fills this requirement for about $200 and keep the extra $$ for memory cards, batteries, and tequila shots.
posted by FearTormento at 10:32 AM on May 3, 2005

I'm also a big fan of Canon digitals - I have the S400 and am a few weeks' away from buying the 350XT dSLR

The best source for unbiased digital camera info is at Digital Photo Review
posted by seawallrunner at 10:32 AM on May 3, 2005

One more thing about the Dimage compacts is the focus mechanism is internal so the lens does not telescope out. Less chance for damage, which was a big factor for me.
posted by Dr_Octavius at 10:33 AM on May 3, 2005

I picked up an Olympus Stylus Verve a while back and have been really happy with it. It's 4 MP, is ready to take pictures in a little over a second after hitting the on button. It's not uber small but it's tiny enough to carry around in my pocket.

It's also somewhat weather resistant, which is one of the main reasons I got it.

The only snag is the shape of the camera is somewhat funky, it took me a while to get used to holding it.

Steve's Digi-Cams has a decent review of it.
posted by ordu at 10:35 AM on May 3, 2005

Best answer: I second the Exilim line. The most compact that you'll find, absolutely tiny, but not the best depth of field for any lanscape shots.
posted by scazza at 10:36 AM on May 3, 2005

The toughest one of your requirements to fill is going to be speed. My Canon s200 fills all the others perfectly, but it takes 5-10 seconds from turning it on until you can take a picture.
posted by Four Flavors at 10:38 AM on May 3, 2005

I second the Nikon Coolpix 5900. Love it.
posted by letterneversent at 10:43 AM on May 3, 2005

Keep in mind that a lot of cameras will "sleep" after a while if you don't turn them off. Waking from sleep is usually a lot faster than powering up from scratch. This may ameliorate slow startup times on some models.
posted by kindall at 10:46 AM on May 3, 2005

Another thing to consider if you are traveling a lot is the battery type. I love my Olympus Stylus 400, but it takes a proprietary rechargeable battery. On a recent trip to Europe I had to pack the charger, a converter, and an extra battery. It sure would have been nice to have had a camera that takes AA batteries.
posted by LarryC at 11:01 AM on May 3, 2005

As far as I am aware, the Canon SD200 and SD300 are the smallest Canons available. I have an SD200 and it's a great camera! I keep it in my trousers pocket almost every time I leave the house. It's small enough to share that pocket with my mobile phone and PalmPilot too.

Only real issue is that sometimes the SDx00 LCDs kinda break for no apparent reason. Hasn't happened to me yet.
posted by grouse at 11:03 AM on May 3, 2005

Best answer: Stop right now and go get a Canon. I recommend the Canon Powershot SD500. I went travelling for a long time with my trusty old Canon Powershot S400 (it looks so trashed now) and everyone tells me how great my photos look. The SD500 has all the same easy to use features (plus a few more), more megapixels, it's faster, smaller, and lighter. You can carry this this camera in your pocket at all times. If you don't want so many megapixels try the Canon Powershot SD400, it's even smaller with all the same features!

The charger will work with any voltage, all you need is a plug adapter. Get a spare battery and you'll be set.

I can't recommend Canon's digital cameras enough. GO GET ONE!
posted by redteam at 11:10 AM on May 3, 2005

Can any of the people recommending Canons (I am a Canon fan when it comes to optics) give me an idea of how fast they are from shot-to-shot and from start-to-shoot? My wife and I are also looking for a new digital camera, and speed is very important to us. I see that Digital Photo Review has a section for speed, but I am interested in first-hand experience as well. Thanks!
posted by terrapin at 11:18 AM on May 3, 2005

Here's advice on what not to buy: a Pentax Optio S 3.1 MP. We have had it for a year and have taken some great pictures, but there have been way too many that have been ruined because they are too blurry. Close up photographs are a dicey proposition without the flash; with the flash the faces are often washed out.

We are shopping for a new ultracompact as a result.
posted by AgentRocket at 11:18 AM on May 3, 2005

I second the Dimage. I have had an earlier model for a couple of years, and it has proved to be small, robust and convenient.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 11:29 AM on May 3, 2005

I third the Casio Exilim line. Took my EX-S3 all over China. The only downside is no optical zoom, but you can't beat how thin and light it is (well, maybe you can, but not when I bought mine).
posted by qwip at 11:37 AM on May 3, 2005

Response by poster: SPEED! SPEED! SPEED! I opened this thread for one purpose: Finding the FASTEST ultra-compact digital camera out there as of May, 2005.

I just went to Wolf Camera to have some hands-on experiences with the cameras suggested here, they didn't have a wide selection, but I did get to play with the Canon SD200, SD300 and the Casio Exilim. I was VERY impressed by the Canon SD300, it was deliciously compact, fast, and easy to use, though I haven't had a chance to go outside with it, or be in a low-light condition, I favored the Canon SD300 over the Casio, Sony, and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX7.

SPEED! SPEED! SPEED! Can anyone suggest a better (faster) camera than the Canon PowerShot line?
posted by rafibodill at 12:06 PM on May 3, 2005

*cough*
posted by grouse at 1:11 PM on May 3, 2005

Best answer: Apparently, the Canon SD series (and all of the new Canons, for that matter) utilize the new DIGIC II processor, which is (one of) the fastest around. I think that's your best bet for right now. fwiw, ymmv, yada yada.
posted by noahv at 1:31 PM on May 3, 2005

I cannot recommend my Canon s230. It's fair otherwise but the time it takes to turn it on and get a pic is lousy.

I bought it amid considerable DIGIC-I hype. And it may be true that the image processor is fast, but then there are other things to consider, like the fact that you have to HOLD DOWN the power button for over an entire second before the camera even registers that you want to turn it on. Lame.
posted by scarabic at 3:09 PM on May 3, 2005

Response by poster: Canon S200, Canon s230 -
Both of you mentioned really old cameras. They were released back in 2002, and since then, 3 years have passed, which is a lot considering the constant improvements in the digital camera scene.

I held the Canon Powershot SD300 today, and its power on time was ~1.4 second. The shutter lag wasn't bad at all, and realizing the Powershot SD500 is out, is even more promising in talks of speed. Though it is more expensive, heavier, and might be wrong to choose if I'm not looking to print out pictures, just keep them for good memories.
posted by rafibodill at 4:42 PM on May 3, 2005

I'll second the Casio Exilim line. Mine is ready to take the photo before I am - probably takes about 1 or 2 seconds from turning it on until it's ready to take pictures.

They also seem to be the smallest cameras there are - the only way to get anything smaller seems to be models with no LCD screen and poor resolution and no memory card slot and no flash, any one of which would be a deal-breaker for normal use.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:15 PM on May 3, 2005

I take my Sony DSC-U40 everywhere and it's ready to shoot in like two seconds. No zoom, hence no waiting for zoom.
posted by joeclark at 5:24 PM on May 7, 2005