I'm sick of not having a camera. I broke my last camera by tossing it into my backpack and then dropping my backpack on a concrete floor.

Any ideas on a somewhat inexpensive ($200 or less) digital camera? I had a Kodak EasyShare and since I love anything that's easy, we got along just fine. But, I'm open to suggestions.

my gf just got one of those and she loves it.

here's a link to some kodak easyshare, unfortunately you can't get any higher than 6 megapixels, but i like the one i have. i only shoot video with it though or when the venues don't allow slrs.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=49&a=706_6215&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&shs=&ci=8612&ac=&Submit.x=12&Submit.y=12

there are no quality digital cameras for less than 200 dollars. You may as well just get a moderately expensive cell phone.

haha

i dropped my old camera a couple dozen times
then
i got a sony cybershot DSC-W30 (only a 6 mp) for 200 bucks a few weeks ago
i didnt have time to save up and
go top of the line and this was better than what i had
and its fantastic
super easy to use
it describes to you right on the screen
what the current setting works best for

99.9% of people don't need a 3 megapixel camera nevermind 6 or over.

Hey, I broke my last camera by dropping it on a concrete floor too. I was changing the batteries and it slipped out of my hand.


I've also been thinking about getting a new digital camera for a while but I don't even know where to buy it. My last one was about $200 CDN and I got it from Radio Shack.

i agree. i still use my canon 2 mp and it prints 4x6s just fine. i think 6 mp takes up a lot of room on the card and you only need it for 8x10s or higher. or if you crop a lot.

i always recommend canon. can't go wrong with their cams. their cheapest will be between 200-300 though.

I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever seen an 8 MegaPixel shot? It is absolutely amazing. Even Mr. Bean could take a quality shot with a camera of that quality. Mine is only a 3 MP SLR and it is seriously outdated. My friend, who does portraits at least for now, just spent 9 grand on a 17 MP camera. It's a 35 mm. but it takes shots of medium format quality. It makes my brain vibrate just thinking about it.

But, I recognize that almost no one can or will spenf that much on a camera. However, a 2 MP camera is the equivalent of the disposable cameras you can buy at wal-mart, IMO.

I have a 3.1 megapixel now (the broken camera) and it's just fine. Ideally, I'd like to have a 5mp, but I don't know that I can afford it.

I just miss having a camera with me at all times.

sounds like your version of a quality shot relies purely on sharpness and detail. to me, there's a lot more to a good photo than that. the camera does not make the photo. you could hand any pro a disposable cam and he/she would take a better shot than mr. bean with his 8 megapixel.

no way, jamie. mr. bean would, through some complex and hilarious bungle, end up taking a pulitzer-winning shot. GUARANTEED.

"i says you get yourself a 4x5/8x10 view camera. you'll get yourself the sharpness and quality ain't no digi cam can capture." -ansel adams

“Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” Simon Newcomb

"[A]ll the calculations that would ever be needed in this country [can] be done on the three digital computers which [are now] being built — one in Cambridge, one in Teddington, and one in Manchester. No one else... [will] ever need machines of their own, or would be able to afford to buy them." (Paraphrased) Cambridge Professor Douglas Hartree

i have a panasonic lumix fz-15. it's a 4 megapixel and has a good zoom on it but it's a little unwieldy if you just want to randomly take pictures.

[img][650:488]http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/Panasonic/fz15threequart.jpg[/img]

I agree that a pro could use a disposable and make a decent shot. Quality I am not too sure. I mean, I know the camera is not what completely makes the shot, but to say that 8 or 17 MP or even 6 is not going to be better than anything below it is absurd.

If you're taking photos of your buddies at the local bar on your birthday, by all means, use a 2MP camera, but if you're trying to do anything remotely artistic I just don't think it would make sense to drop 200-300 on a camera when if you just saved a bit longer you could exponentially increase just the camera's ability to create quality. My Mr. Bean comment was, I thought, obviously hyberbole.

Fuji's have really fast shutter speeds, so you can catch action fast. I got a new one for $130 a couple weeks ago. I love it, except that it uses the XD cards which are expensive.

Panasonic has this new one out that has a 6x zoom on it for $199. I think it uses SD cards which are dirt cheap. The bad thing is it's a little bigger because of the zoom, and it doesn't have a viewfinder, just the screen on the back to see what you are pointing at, so using it outside on a sunny day taking photos of falling buildings might be hard.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM?view=for

The quality of the camera sensor is what determines the quality of the picture not the number of pixels. It's quite conceivable that a good quality 2mp camera could take much better pictures than a cheaper 5mp camera with a less capable digital sensor.

Higher pixels equate to how large a photo can be printed and still retain a good quality resolution. Since the vast majority of people aren't sending off disks to specialist printers to get poster sized prints of their holiday snaps, I'm sticking to my opinion that 99.9% of people will never need more than 2 - 3 mp. A 3mp, 2048 x 1536 photo can give a good quality print up to 28 x 21 inches, far in excess of the printing capabilities of any home printer.

In fact higher pixel density within standard sized photos can produce far poorer results than a lower pixel density due to 'pixel overcrowding' producing 'spots' and 'noise' in the photo.

I have a 9mp camera and can't envisage any circumstances that I'd take photographs with it at that setting. People just want more megapixels so they can have bragging rights over others and it has very little to do with the actual requirements of the user.

I understand your point to a certain extent, but taking photos with my 3mp slr and my friend's 6mp slr, I have to disagree, at least only because of my personal experience. The more pixels, the clearer the photo will be on a print. If you take the same shot (or at least as closely as you can) with the same brand, let's say Canon, and one is 3MP and the other is 6MP, I am confident, and have seen that the quality and crispness of color, point of focus, and general aesthetic value of a 4x6 print is greater. No, it is not solely due to the MP, but it certainly is important.

I have never noticed noise as a result of high megapixels. In fact, I have seen a greater likelihood for noise in cameras that have low MP count. I mean, maybe if you took a 4x6 photo with 17 MP camera you could have that overcrowding, but I have used 3, 6, and 8 MP Canon SLR's and the shots were increasingly of greater quality in terms of clarity and resolution. I have never used one higher than 8MP. That's where experience stops for me. But, I do know that my friend who has the 17MP camera does portraits and some signifcant poster sized prints of weddings, landscape, etc. It's a different use for that than I would use a camera for.

I wish I had the Canon 20D. I can't afford it, but I have become increasingly less satisfied with the results from my 3MP camera. I don't even remember the model.

Dammit, Hegel. Your buttbuddy's newfangled camera probably has a better sensor than your Fisher Price SLR.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore camera makers can always brag about how much better this week's camera is, with even negligible improvements.

This gimmick is used by salespeople and manufacturers to you feel as if your current camera is inadequate and needs to be replaced even if the new cameras each year are only slightly better.

One needs about a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as a quadrupling of megapixels. A simple doubling of megapixels, even if all else remained the same, is very subtle. The factors that matter, like color and sharpening algorithms, are far more significant.

You're right. His camera has a better everything than mine. But, then again, he does it for a profession. I do it as a hobby. You can see his site Right Here.

Oh, and I like what you did there with the whole calling him my buttbuddy thing. Your wisdom about every subject nevers ceases to amaze me.

good links, I like
http://www.dpreview.com


Just had this delivered yesterday



I went with traditional silver