I couldn't find any camera threads newer than a year old. My old Kodak Easyshare C180 is on its dying breath. I want to spend about $100-200 for a new or used camera.

I don't know anything about photography and I never mess with settings other than turning the little wheel for closeups, action, etc. I don't take videos often but good quality video is definitely a plus. I just want to take nice pictures of my vacation without too much effort I prefer one that runs off AA batteries instead of a battery pack (for me, a camera charger is just one more thing I might forget)

Thanks!!

6/20/2012 5:12:19 PM

Get a newer phone? It'll probably have the same or similar quality pics as a point-n-shoot will.

6/20/2012 5:16:23 PM

Don't waste your money on a camera that takes aa batteries. I have never used one that didn't have horrible lag time.

6/20/2012 5:51:09 PM

My buddy says that you can check pawn shops for digital cameras and get really good deals there on good devices. Not a lot of people need their cameras these days due to cell phones, so its the first to go for pawning

6/20/2012 8:26:32 PM

Quote :

"Don't waste your money on a camera that takes aa batteries. I have never used one that didn't have horrible lag time."

Every time I've ever heard of anyone complaining about camera lag, it has always been the user not knowing how to use the camera properly, rather than a deficiency on the part of the camera.

Just about any basic Canon or Nikon point and shoot will do you just fine. On the other hand, you can likely find an older (2006-2008ish) digital SLR for cheap on ebay or used on Amazon or Adorama.

[Edited on June 20, 2012 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2012 9:05:35 PM

^^terrible advice, I have never seen an adequately priced used camera at the pawn shop. For what they charge for used cameras, you almost always can get a newer, more capable model, since tech is improving so goddamn fast. Maybe it is not true at all shops, but it is more of a rule than an exception. Craigslist or TWW classifieds would be a much better deal. I think i even bought a P&S from Shaggy back in the day
^^^good advice, Li-ion proprietary packs much higher energy density than alkaline batteries or Ni-MH rechargeables. Unless you plan to be off the grid, no need for AAs anymore, they only add bulk. if you are worried about forgetting the charger, get one that can charge via USB port. Mini-usb chargers and cables are almost as ubiquitous as AA batteries, even in third-world countries. Plus you can charge it from your laptop and such.
^^^^as phone cameras got better, so did the point-and-shoots. You get a better value by going the dedicated camera route. Not to mention that 99% of phone cameras don't have zoom lenses. Phone is always with you, so it is good to have both.

Sony P&S have some of the best intelligent auto algorithms out there and features like sweep-panorama and in-camera HDR are pretty cool too. But really any of the other established brands will also take good photos (canon, nikon, fuji, panasonic, possibly even sanyo). Do not get the very-entry level model from these manufacturers that you will see in Sam's club and CVS, usually the second-tier models provide the best value for just a few more bucks. After that you will play premium for features that you may not use.



[Edited on June 20, 2012 at 9:22 PM. Reason : I'm a canon guy, but sony p&s are pretty sweet]

6/20/2012 9:15:12 PM

Quote :

" Every time I've ever heard of anyone complaining about camera lag, it has always been the user not knowing how to use the camera properly, rather than a deficiency on the part of the camera."

There is definitely a difference between cameras with aa batteries and rechargeable lithium batteries. I'm not even sure what a user could do to adversely affect the amount of time the camera takes to process between pictures in a standard setting. If you read any review on sites such as Consumer Reports it's a common issue with cameras using disposables. For some people they don't care that much but I know back when I was doing photography for work it would annoy the crap out of me when trying to get candid shots for our newsletter.

6/20/2012 10:09:00 PM

At that price point, I'd just get a cell phone with a decent camera.

If you want to spend more, then Canon S95.

6/20/2012 10:50:12 PM

S95 has been superseded by the S100. Great camera but possibly a little much for what she's looking for, both in terms of price ($350-400) and manual control. I'm a fan of Canon but she could go into the "lesser" SD series, or the SX travel zoom models, and still be quite happy.

I've been looking at the S100 to replace my old (2005!) S70, but can't quite bring myself to spend the money when I don't have a DSLR.

*As an example, the Canon SX150 has a 14x zoom lens, 14.1 MP, runs on AA's, and still fits in a pocket (albeit maybe not a small one). Dpreview's main complaint with it was sluggish operation and disappointing battery life, which fits with the complaints about AA-powered cameras. But if those are things she is willing to trade for the ubiquitous battery format, it's an otherwise well-specced camera for under $200. Even has some manual controls she can grow into.

[Edited on June 20, 2012 at 11:29 PM. Reason : f]

6/20/2012 11:22:15 PM

if you want the absolute best bang for your buck, go with something like the like nikon S8200: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B005IGVXO8



i bought this at christmas for $208 shipped and settled on it for several reasons:

- 14x optical zoom (25-350mm)
- decent wide angle (25mm)
- quality glass
- BSI-CMOS sensor (backside illuminated for better low-light performance)

things like 1080p stereo video recording and the 921k screen were bonuses

my only real complaint is that the flash is a pop-up that you can't push back down on your own (i mean, you can, but it will spring back up...you can only close it by turning off the camera and that's beyond stupid)

the quick-select modes are strange (like "pets" instead of "sports" for fast-motion capture...wtf?), but they do exactly what the "traditional" modes do...the HDR and panorama modes are neat and work well

i'm with you in the battery issue, but the truth is that AA batteries are less efficient, heavier, and larger...and you still have to carry a charger or extra batteries or plan on buying some while you're out (which, admittedly, is easier than picking up a proprietary type)...but remember that the proprietary li-ion batteries will last longer in the first place and you can pick up spares for $5/each (or less) and keep them in your camera case

most cameras charge with a USB cable plugged into a wall adapter these days...which means that you can forgo toting around a wall charger (or multiple ones, anyway) and just take along the cable (another complaint with the nikon is that it uses a non-microUSB adapter, so i can't use the same cable for my phone, nook, and camera...but it's not a huge deal because of the link below)

furthermore, it's my opinion that everyone should own a universal li-ion charger...it costs $6 and will charge virtually any rechargeable li-ion battery (camera, phone, etc): http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMW-BCF10-PowerGen-Universal-Battery/dp/B004B6AHDO/ (ignore the "panasonic" in the title...it's universal)

also also, now that i'm deviating from the thread topic (slightly, as you DID mention power), you should get a 4-port USB wall charger for $6.40: http://www.amazon.com/4-USB-Port-Ac-Charger/dp/B0036VO7OK/

6/21/2012 8:18:18 AM

I have an older Panasonic Lumix that has treated me well. My guess is the newer ones are pretty solid but I don't have any first-hand experience with them.

6/21/2012 8:37:07 AM

never had problems with any of the Sony Cybershots i've owned since 2007. Been through 2 of them

6/21/2012 1:44:07 PM

^^^ I used to have an older version of that camera and it was great. Only reason I changed it out was I needed something waterproof and shockproof for when I went skiing and snorkeling.

6/21/2012 1:48:36 PM

I took an older Canon SX120 on a trip and have some decent shots to remember things by. Not as compact as a C180, but the SX150, which is the current version of what I have, runs on AA's, has a 12x optical zoom, and will record 720p with stereo sound. The price is in your range, and it will work fine on auto or you can play with manual settings to your hearts content.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : also you can flip the flash up and down to turn it on or off manually.]

6/21/2012 1:53:41 PM

My elph 500 has been solid so far. 300 is basically the same thing, but I got the 500 since it was on clearance super cheap. New model has way more zoom, almost wish I had waited for that.

6/21/2012 2:08:20 PM

I have the ELPH 300HS (After looking at a bunch of CNET reviews http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-elph-300/4505-6501_7-34505047.html). Thing works great as a point and shoot. Lots of customization options. Has CMOS sensor. Got it for $125 around Christmas time last year.

Also has high speed video feature which is kinda neat. Records at either 200 or 400 FPS.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2012 2:32:05 PM

Quote :

"I want to spend about $100-200 for a new or used camera."

Quote :

"I don't know anything about photography and I never mess with settings other than turning the little wheel for closeups, action, etc."

Duke, I own a S95 myself, but I don't see how that is the best fit for her requirements. Definitely an overkill in terms of manuals functions, and really not the best sensor for the money for shooting jpegs.

Ultrazooms like Quag posted are pretty sweet in terms of the reach and manual functions, but a little more money and bulk. She said she will not probably use manual functions.

300HS like Timbo posted will also fit her bill, and it used to be one of the best bangs for the buck last year, in fact I bought one of them for my mom. Having used it and the Sony extensively, Sony wins by a small margin.

I haven't looked at P&S market in the half of a year or so, but having owned a P&S of every major maker except for Nikon, and having played with countless more, I stand by the Sony recommendation. Something like DSC-WX50 will be cheap (under $200 out of the door with money left over for a memory card), have a 16mp backside-illuminated CMOS sensor, optical image stabilizer, nicely designed menu, and controls that are simple enough not to be confusing but that will still allow easy changes in major functions and toggling between photo and video without going through the menu every time. New Sonys finally take SD media including SDXC cards (old ones were tried to expensive and proprietary memory stick). My wife had a previous reiteration from the same line, and she loved it much more than using my S95. Sweep 3-D is more of a gimmick, but sweep panorama works really well. Full 1080p video with zoom and AF capability. Runs off Li-ion rechargeable pack, but can be charged via USB without removing the battery from camera. and very very intelligent Auto mode selector. Everything she needs and nothing she doesn't.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2012 2:58:18 PM

Quote :

"DSC-WX50"

5x optical is simply unacceptable for me...i realize everyone's priorities are different, but i'll never go below 12x optical again after hating my last 5x purchase

6/21/2012 3:45:07 PM

Yeah the S8200 is a good bang for the buck if she is willing to go over her budget. It takes my DSLR three lenses to cover the focal range the little guy provides while staying relatively compact (although being on the very borderline of being pocketable). It also have built-in HDR and panorama mode similar to the Sony. For a vacation camera, it is often worth stepping up for an ultrazoom. For daily camera to shoot snaps of your family, 5x is more than enough, especially since none of these cameras do very well on the long end of the lens in anything but sunlight.

6/21/2012 4:03:24 PM

Quote :

"For a vacation camera, it is often worth stepping up for an ultrazoom. For daily camera to shoot snaps of your family, 5x is more than enough, especially since none of these cameras do very well on the long end of the lens in anything but sunlight."

this is all true...i use my S8200 when my D90 is too heavy/bulky/expensive to take with me (backpacking, mostly)

6/21/2012 4:24:04 PM

What do you guys think of this camera? The guy agreed to sell it to me for $90

It's a Panasonic Lumix DMC FX75

http://charleston.craigslist.org/ele/3066195649.html

or this one, a Panasonic Lumix DMC TZ3 for $120

http://charleston.craigslist.org/ele/3101411188.html

6/25/2012 10:55:03 PM

The TZ3 was a very well regarded camera in its time, but IMO $120 is *way* too much for a camera that came out in 2007.

Don't really know anything about the FX75.

6/26/2012 12:37:37 AM

it depends on what your priorities are

FX75 PROS

- newer
- F2.2 aperture
- 24mm wide angle
- 720p AVCHD lite video recording (meh)
- touchscreen (meh)

TZ3 PROS

- 10x optical zoom
- better construction (metal vs plastic)
- great overall performance

on paper, the FX75 is a better camera...to me, it's kind of like buying an IBM/lenovo thinkpad laptop versus a basic dell/HP/acer/whatever...you're going to get better performance for your money out of one, but the other will last longer and that comes with a price

as richthofen said, it was probably the best P&S you could buy at the time (solid construction, MP count was/is reasonable for the sensor size, good low-light performance, 10x optical zoom)...it's simply a great-performing, durable compact camera

the FX75 is newer, though, and that aperture and wide angle would be tempting to me (though as i noted earlier, the 5x optical zoom would be a deal breaker)...i don't like touchscreens because they're more fragile than mechanical controls and that video recording isn't really a selling point IMO

agreed that $120 is too much for the TZ3, though i think they command an inflated resale value because they have something of a cult following...i'd probably go with the FX75 if the optical zoom limitation doesn't bother you

[Edited on June 26, 2012 at 8:48 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2012 8:46:51 AM

Panasonic p/s cameras are pieces of shit.

Do yourself a favor and buy a Canon. I LOVE mine

6/26/2012 3:20:50 PM

I <3 this camera:

6/26/2012 5:10:07 PM

Thanks guys! I went ahead and got the FX75. My current camera only has 3x optical so the 5x zoom is an upgrade for me

6/26/2012 11:21:28 PM

the nikon s8200 i posted about earlier is on sale for $140 (refurb) from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&SID=d2b.CCXRAXCSMGHFEFPC9PV3GUUK63_&sku=840172&AID=10603278&PID=1260291&is=REF&A=details&Q=

7/19/2012 12:14:56 PM

I bought my GF a Nikon S### (don't remember)... I will never buy another Nikon product if this is how Nikon's are made and how their CS behaves. Biggest piece of shit camera ever.

7/19/2012 1:17:47 PM

Anyone recommend a good waterproof camera? Been wanting to pick something for backpacking/climbing/kayaking etc. Was thinking about the Nikon AW100.

http://gizmodo.com/5916329/the-best-waterproof-rugged-digital-cameras

Don't think it has manual settings though which is what I'd like as well. Every review I've read talks about leaking, etc so I'm thinking of getting a Squaretrade or Bestbuy warranty to swap it out no questions asked whenever it breaks.

7/26/2012 12:11:41 PM

Now I'm thinking the Olympus TG-1

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-TG-1iHS-Waterproof-Digital-Optical/dp/B00803WNOK

Seems to have the best reviews online.

7/26/2012 12:55:40 PM

7/26/2012 4:34:35 PM

i has olympus xz1 10megapixel. is very easy to use, light, and takes really really good pictures and videos and audio. i know its dumb but one of the things i like about it most is its all metal so its cold to the touch. I love that. i hate plastic shit.

7/27/2012 10:17:51 PM

Anymore advice?

8/22/2012 8:20:53 PM

weird, i was just coming to bump this thread

refurb S9100 for $105 shipped, no tax: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818281-REF/Nikon_26248B_Coolpix_S9100_Digital_Camera.html

also at adorama: http://www.adorama.com/INKCPS9100BR.html

it's not as nice as the S8200 IMO (starting ISO of 160 instead of 100, electronic VR instead of lens-shift), but it also costs half at this pricepoint

it's got 12MP instead of 16MP (which means exactly nothing, of course) and the 18x zoom (25-450mm) is absolutely ridiculous (the S8200 is 14x at 25-350mm)...unless you're using a tripod or the light is very bright (ie. outdoor shots), that extra 4x optical zoom is going to be more of a problem than a feature as it will be difficult to keep stable)

[Edited on August 22, 2012 at 8:55 PM. Reason : links]

8/22/2012 8:54:09 PM

9100 has optical VR (they advertise as "hybrid" but that basically means lens or sensor shift of some sort plus image processing). They would be crazy not to have it with a lens this long.

8/23/2012 12:17:49 PM

got any advice for something waterproof??

8/23/2012 9:43:20 PM

Wait, so is the 9100 good or bad?

8/23/2012 10:02:26 PM

u can waterproof a camera with a ziplock baggie. if u paranoid, use a freezerbag. also, they make underwater housings. the housings probably keep you from pressing buttons and stuff but the freezer bag doesn't.

interestingly, the freezer bags block out some light but the sammich baggies don't.

if u r afraid of leak at the zip part of the bag, i can superglue or use a lighter to seal it.

8/23/2012 10:07:52 PM

Quote :

"9100 has optical VR (they advertise as "hybrid" but that basically means lens or sensor shift of some sort plus image processing). They would be crazy not to have it with a lens this long."

i didn't mean to imply it didn't have ANY vibration reduction, just that it is generally accepted that lens-shift is superior and the 9100 uses, as you said, a mix...electronic VR is better than nothing, but i think most people find it to be less effective

again, i think the 9100 is a great camera at this price, but the hybrid VR is part of the reason it's intro price is lower than the 8200's (which came after the 9100, i believe)

Quote :

"Wait, so is the 9100 good or bad?"

it's "good"...that's not to say it's the best point and shoot in the world, but it's GREAT for $105

if you google the reviews (or "s8200 vs s9100"), you'll find that MOST people think the 9100 isn't as good as the 8200, but that's just a review by comparison, not on its own merits...in any case, the difference is marginal in most cases...i almost want to pick it up, myself

8/24/2012 6:57:46 AM

2^I don't really own a decent point and shoot (my canon is probably 10 years old), was going to go with just a smart phone (don't have one of those either) to take on my honeymoon so I don't have to drag my DSLR, is there no waterproof camera out there worth having? i think in any other instance I wouldn't mind taking my dslr, but somewhere it can get wet...i think I'm just too paranoid to take it.

8/24/2012 9:05:44 AM

^ why do you need/want something waterproof? are you planning on taking it diving/snorkeling?

a decent waterproof camera if expensive...you can get something basic like the olympus tg-320 for around $180: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830111523

it's an $80 camera with a $100 waterproof feature, so don't go into expecting more than that

without knowing exactly why you want it, my suggestion would be to get a decent P&S (like the S9100) and then something like the kodak playsport: http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/PLAYSPORT_Video_Camera__Zx3/productID.169976100

it's a waterproof (to 10 feet, so more like very splashproof) 1080p camcorder with the ability to take 5MP still shots (which are not spectacular, admittedly)...i got mine for $50 on clearance (they don't make it anymore), but there are a number of similar digicams around $80-100

you'll spend about the same amount of money, but have a nice P&S and decent waterproof 1080p camcorder to show for it

8/24/2012 10:28:27 AM

We are going on a cruise, and we are taking an excursion on a pirate ship. Booze cruise, bowsprit jumping, snorkeling. It would really only be for that, and then probably wouldnt see much action after the honeymoon.

8/24/2012 10:33:38 AM

well, *i* like having a decent P&S...i love my DSLR, too, but i'm certainly not going to lug it around when i go backpacking and my wife loves having a camera she can put in her purse...so we bought one that gets as much use as the DSLR

unless you'd be content with JUST the waterproof camcorder (and it doesn't seem like you would be, which i totally get), just plan in spending $180-200 for either option and decide which you prefer

[Edited on August 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM. Reason : google for some video and still image examples of the camcorders]

8/24/2012 10:42:19 AM

toshiba BW10 waterproof 1080p camcorder for $65 with free shipping

http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-toshiba-camileo-waterproof-camcorder

8/27/2012 9:52:47 AM

Crap, i had to buy a new phone this week. That is a great deal.

8/27/2012 10:00:28 AM

Not that I have need for it right now, but how much do the waterproof cases tend to be? I'm considering replacing my trusty old Canon S70 (7 years old and still going strong) with the successor to the S100 late this year or early next year. As I tend to buy decent cameras and keep them for a while, if I had occasion for waterproof usage, it would be nice to just be able to "box up" what I have as opposed to getting a whole other device.

8/27/2012 1:05:51 PM

you have a couple of options:

1.) "soft" cases for $40-50...don't know if i'd trust them
2.) off-brand hard case for $130-150...don't know if i'd trust them
3.) canon-brand hard case for $220+ (i'd trust this)

8/27/2012 1:45:23 PM

1) Buy a good P&S camera
2) For the rare times when you are going to actually need the waterproof one, use one of those cheap disposal waterproof cameras and get the processed photos put onto a CD

8/27/2012 3:36:43 PM