Small Portable Camera

Ian

Ian

Administrator
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
1,514
After seeing all of these photographers among us, I've started to really fancy getting into it myself.

I'm more of an opportunist, and sometimes just like a certain view when I am out. So, I thought a small digital camera would be best just to slip into my pocket. 2/3x Optical zoom and an LCD screen would be nice too :)

Does anyone have any advice on a small digital camera that would be of use? I don't have too much money to spend on one, but I could stretch to the £300 mark at an absolute max (if I sell my old one - a Fuji 1300).
 
Perhaps answering my own question, but the Canon IXUS V3 3.2MP looks good!
 
A humble suggestion!

Ian,

I would not like to confuse you in any way by going into technicalities; however, some basics need to be considered.

When you decide on a budget you must consider two very important things which in my opinion are

1)Digital Film
The digital film (compact flash, sd memory, memory stick etc) which is bundled with the camera is just not large enough to do justice to any photo sessions usually 16 MB nowadays with most of the cameras except really cheap ones which come with an 8 MB card, so invariably you need to consider a larger capacity one which will add to the cost of the camera. Ideally you need a 128 MB or 256 MB to be able to shoot comfortably with a 3.2 mega pixel camera.

2)Batteries
LCD by far consume the most power in a digital camera, they gobble up battery power and before you know it you are left with a camera which is practically dead. An additional battery always comes in handy for shooting sessions, if you are out and about you just cannot charge the batteries which usually take 2 hours at least to fully charge. It all depends what kind of battery is used in the camera, very few models come with the facility to use basic AAA or AA batteries (which actually make the camera heavy), normally lithium batteries are included with a charger and a second battery is a must for outdoor shooting.


Ian, as for selecting the camera, you need to answer few questions to yourself when picking up a particular model.

What kind of photography you will likely end up doing? Portraits? Landscapes? Travel? Indoors? I know you have not yet started in a big way but these things matter in the choice of a particular camera.

Let me guide you on these things individually

Portraits: You will need a camera which is at least having a focal length of 70 to 80 mm minimum

Landscapes: you will need a camera which has a focal length of at least 35 mm or wider

Travel: you will need a camera with a zoom lens of at least 35-70 mm or even better say 35-105 or 28 -80

Indoors: You need a camera with a wider angle and a slightly more powerful flash.

All these functions cannot be had in a single camera given your budget, you will surely need to give up something or the other, but not everything. If you can decide on the type of photography that you will likely end up doing, you can short list a camera which will give you more enjoyment and value for money.

I am very comfortable if someone is selecting either Nikon, Canon or even Olympus so feel free to pick any model and see if it meets your requirement. The model you mentioned does not have zoom and I feel it may be slightly limiting factor. Although it looks very good on paper and also as far as its appearance is concerned. In your budget, you will be able to comfortably afford a 3 MP camera and that is what I would recommend nowadays.

I am around and will guide you to the last stage when you finally end up buying a camera. I hope we will see some good pictures in this forum as well. Eric has come up with a good lot and hope he will continue to share his experience with us on a regular basis.
 
I was mainly looking for an all in one camera - wishfully thinking on my budget though ;)

I would probably be taking a wide range of photos, but probably focusing on Landscapes, then again, I'd be using a lot of close up work for review items... is that a possible mix? :crazy:

I should be ok with the removable media, as I have a plethora of cards after my card reader - albeit not too large (64 meg max). I can get a decent sized one though.

As for batteries, internal lithium ones would probably be best for me, as they will last longer and be lighter - and I could rig up an external power supply to the DC port if needed ;)
 
Ian,

You are a very demanding customer, do you know what they do to a very demanding customer?:confused:

They punish them by making them buy the camera which does everything he needs to do and maybe even more. ;)

The camera!
 
Hmmmmmm! Now this camera does look good!!!!

Thankyou Quad! :spin:

I'll read into the camera a little more, and try out a model in a shop - I'll update this thread as I progress :)
 
After looking for prices on the Coolpix SQ, I found the "Minolta DiMAGE Xi" - do you think that would be suitable for the same applications?

Sorry to keep bombarding you with questions ;)
 
In a word NO!

Let me put forward the facts so that you know why I said no.

Minolta
Flash Range 2.9m
Close Focus 25cm
Max shutter 1/1000
ISO Range 70-200
Aperture Range F2.8-3.6

Nikon
Flash Range 5m
Close Focus 4cm
Max Shutter 1/2000
ISO Range 50-400
Aperture Range F2.7-4.8

These are the most important specs which matter when it comes to photography and your own needs.

Minolta is seriously lacking in two things for sure, very weak flash and unacceptable Macro range for review purpose. I can discuss in detail but I am sure you have a fairly good idea of what I am trying to say here.
 
I got a Canon Ixus V when it first came out a while back and it's superb...best design (if you're into aesthetics of the thing), rechargeable batt and USB + nice little LCD screen etc. The V3 can only be better. Key thing is that picture quality is good with the 2.1Mpx as I'm not likely to want to print anything beyond A4 (if even that). I did invest in a 256Mb compact flash...even at superfine 1600X1200 res, my battery will die before I could fill the card! Don't know enough about digis to advise on the 'best' buy...but I do know I like the Ixus. :D
 
Now that you put the facts out like that, it seems pretty clear :)
 
He he ... decisions decisions .... Ian, don't be to hasty, listen to "the man". ;) Then buy the best you can afford that will meet your specifications from his "list". :D

I did not seek Quads advice, the truth is I could not afford to spend your budget; however, I'm sure Quad would have come up with something in my price range if I took a little more time. Nettie still cannot get used to the dam thing. :(
 
I'm really gonna stick my arrogant oar in here!

I reckon there's a lot of bollix talked about digital cameras, and there a few basic facts that really matter:
1. Optical quality depends more than anything else on lens quality...after all, the camera is still dealing with available light, not some new type high tech light that someone has invented. You can think your digicam piccy's are great....as long as they were taken in the right conditions, but get a dull day, or artificial room lighting and they will always look poor. Also, everyones' eyes interpret image quality with far more variation than u will get from digital camera lenses! Always distrust other people's view of colour balance etc...go by your own vision...you will know best if something looks crap or not.
2. Digital cameras are far better than film cameras for colour balance...film developing is dependent on a particular chemical mix that will ALWAYS bias certain primary colours...even cheap digis don't have this bias as their colour balance is interpreted by mathematical algorithm rather than chemical mix.
3. Digital zooms simply reduce the quality of an image by reducing resolution.
4. Increases in megapixels (e.g. 4Mpxl that is increased to 6Mpxl) is achieved by artificially filling in colours (crude explanation i know), but it's basically faking up to 33% of the image. What you end up with is often of lower contrast and brightness, but you pay more for it! And the only reason for it is so that you can blow the picture up to a larger size for printing.
5. Anything beyond 2Mpxl is a bit pointless unless you can afford to print at over A4 size in full clolour...and u can afford the ink cartridges etc, as well as the printer. for web use, u only need low res...in fact it's preferred so the file size is smaller. Shots in 1024x768 max are normally ideal.
6. There are loads of cameras that will readily handle micro shots and landscapes in colour and B+W...and there's very little to choose between them in terms of picture quality. I guarantee that you could put a range of snaps in front of an 'expert' and they wouldn't be able to tell which camera took them, even if they had reference shots to check against.
7. Once you get a camera, everyone else's photos will always look better than yours, because you (just like everyone else) will always be looking for the flaws in your own equipment and artistry. Everyone is their own worst critic!
8. The thing that is often most overlooked in a camera is the 'feel' of it...do you like carrying it? Does it give you a buzz 'cos it looks cool? etc...
9. All compact and digital camera's built-in flash are crap...but on digi's red-eye can be removed easily with the software...it just ain't important to have anti-red eye flash on the camera.

Conclusion: Spend no more than £300 (less if you can). In that range, get a list of all reasonable brand named cameras that have some good reviews on the web and in camera mags; that are no less than 2Mpxls (but don't get fixated on more than that). Make sure they all have a compact flash/similar memory of at least 128Mb and can take snaps of at least 1600X1200 in super fine mode. You could make sure they all have a basic zoom function...(but u'll probably find this is pretty pointless)...and make sure they all have rechargeable battery packs and USB connectivity to your PC or laptop. Then comes the difficult bit...

Just pick the one you like the look of.

The more you spend, the more critical you will be and the less you will enjoy it. The more you spend, the faster your camera will depreciate and the quicker you will feel depressed. Spend less now, and get used to what a digital camera can do, then upgrade if you find you need to.

I bought my camera over 18 months ago for £300. I use it for everything and it surpasses any camera I ever owned (even when i had a darkroom and loads of kit) I can see no reason to need to upgrade it for at least another couple of years, if then.

Go on...buy the one that gave you that: 'Mmmm, I like the look of that one' feeling. as long as it's reviews don't stink, it'll be fine.

This suggestion is brought to you curtesy of 1nteger's Arrogant Phase Productions Ltd. :D
 
The good, the bad and the ugly.

1nteger, you have some good points, some bad points and then there is your opinion. :brow: I'm not going to "nit-pick" your comments but just to let you know ...

... if I could have given my budget for my camera to Quad, I would have. I know I would have gotten the best for my money. You should read some of Quads articles. 8)

I say again, don't take my comment too personally. We have a master in our midst and he needs no defence from me but he does know what he is talking about. We have all "dabbled" in taking a picture ... I would love to have Quads expertise ... 'nuf said.

:bow:
 
...my comments weren't addressing anyone's comments at all Mucks, just stating my opinion based in part on my own dark-room escapades prior to movung into digital, and significantly on the many digital cameras we use here in my workplace (we use digis extensively in graphic design amd marketing publications for web and hard copy 'glossies' etc)...some of the points I mentioned were stating things a bit crudely but in essence I reckon most of what I put was pretty close to the mark.

I would be interested to know which bits were off target though...I'm always willing to learn new stuff. :bow:
 
Originally posted by 1nteger
I would be interested to know which bits were off target though...I'm always willing to learn new stuff. :bow:
Click to expand...

Integer,

You have a great post there, looks like you put in a lot of effort in putting it all together. Permit me to put forward my opinion as well.

1 Optical Quality: You are absolutely right about that, the quality of the lens dictates the ultimate image. As far as light is concerned the digital camera deals with that issue with the setting of “white balance” which is either automatic or having manual over-ride. If it is automatic it is a compromise, if manual, it depends on the skill of the user and how he/she sets it for given light conditions.

2. See point one above

3. I have always emphasized on this point whenever I confront this issue. See my thread on this.

4. This concept has lately been introduced in some of the camera’s and I remember having seen a brief review of Fuji Finepix 700 which has recently been introduced. When everyone else was happy with square pixels and interpolation, Fuji had to have octagons and extrapolation. However, this new technology is yet to really take off provided it is a success. It may also be noted that this particular camera has also received an award for the innovative technology. Therefore, we are not qualified enough to disregard or trash the technology by simply saying it does not work. Not just yet! Only time will tell how this new technology will unfold and which other manufacturers jump on the band-wagon.

5. I beg to differ from your opinion that one does not need to get anything beyond 2 MP. The only purpose of a digital camera is not just web; there are folks who like to shoot with a digital camera for various reasons. One can hardly crop an image if it is from a 2 MP camera due to loss in resolution when blown up. ;)

6. It is a very generalized assumption so I will abstain from making any comments.

7. Absolutely

8 Purely a matter of personal preference, and yes, I do agree with you there. Despite of that I bought a very ugly looking digital camera, go figure :crazy:

9. You should address the camera manufacturers with this issue who seem adamant in putting this feature in almost every camera they produce which are so called “idiot proof” . Ian, if you are reading this, make sure you get the feature removed from the camera you finally select, so that you can get a refund!!! :D

Ian, posted the message for guidance only because he is possibly not well informed when it comes to buying and selecting the digital camera and also may not have time on his hand to go through a plethora of magazines or surf the web looking for the right camera. He simply stated his needs and we need to help him short-list a camera. We cannot possibly force him to buy a particular model; our job is to guide him in the best possible way, and at the same time not confusing him with technicalities. As a matter of fact not just Ian but anyone who needs our help, that is why the reason for forum like PC Review to exist. :bow:

By the way, I have yet to come across any model in the said price bracket (budget) which bundles a 128 mb card when you buy the camera, :confused: there may be deals but the basic camera price only includes starter cards of say 8-16 MB. So guiding the person about the memory card is also important when the budgeting is done.

Your practical experience about use of digital camera that you talk about, sure will come handy on this forum and I would very much like that you continue with your posts in similar fashion just as you did in this thread. 8)

Happy shooting! :)
 
I Love it ... its nice to see some constructive posts ... from both of you.

This is great stuff … sorry for barging in 1nterger, I’m sure we’ll have more great discussions.

:D
 
...Certainly will have more discussions...

Quad...I totally bow to your expertise in the digital camera arena, and in the spirit of that, allow me to just review some of the points you just made.

First, you seem to agree with most of what i said in points 1, 2 and 3.

On point 4: Yes, this technology is still in development, but until it does move ahead (innovative as it is) it's a fact that the artificial enhancement of the resolution to allow bigger prints, is achieved at the cost of contrast and brightness. I did not 'trash' it or say that it does not work...my point was that it has a function for large scale printing and is not really worth paying for for general digital camera use.

Point 5 really followed that line...I said that anything above a 2mpxl camera is: "a bit pointless unless you can afford to print over A4 size in full colour"...in other words, I do realise that digital cameras are used for more than web work...and I agree that there is always a need for higher resoultion if you want to make enlargements, but within most people's budget, colour printing is simply not realistic above A4, and anything over 2mpxl is probably not going to make much difference to the naked eye. I don't know many people who can afford an A3 colour printer and afford the paper and inks etc (or toner cartridges for A3 colour laser).

[On an additional point, for anyone who's really into getting a digital camera for printing images, their choice of printer will be something that is (I suggest) as important as their choice of camera.]

On my point 6...Yup, I agree, this could not easily be demonstrated, but i've seen enough images that were preparatory printed 'snaps' taken by our designers with 'basic' digital cameras, who then mistake them for the final higher res ones taken with 'professional' digital cameras, , 'cos they simply were not that different in quality when printed at A4 or below. (But, I accept your point...it can only be an opinion)

7...we agree
8...we sort of agree...I guess my point is that people can get too wrapped up in the technical specs and actually end up with a camera they hate being seen with!
9...we sort of agree?

On the matter of the 128Mb card...you are absolutely correct...I did buy this seperately...I meant to say that out of a budget of £300, I would include the cost of a 128Mb memory. (I only got an 8Mb card with my Ixus)

By the way, I did not put a lot of thought into my original post...in fact I just slapped it down in 10 mins of the top of my head (hence the occasional glitch)...bu it's nice of you to assume that I worked hard on it;)

Finally, as for Ian's original post...clearly this is the whole point of the forums: advice is needed...advice is given, and the more informed the better. I think it appeared from the tone of my own post that I had read everyone else's and was responding directly to them...in fact I simply picked up the thread of the question and got on my high horse without looking at what everyone else had said. That's why I said up front that 'I was gonna stick my arrogant oar in', and why I added at the end 'Suggestion brought to you courtesy of 1ntegers' Arrogant Phase Productions Ltd' :brow:

Please be aware that I will occasionally do this, if only to stimulate debate, but I would certainly never 'aim' criticism at someone who so clearly has a greater knowledge about the subject than myself.

...and as for you, Muckshifter...you can barge in whenever you want m8:D :D :D
 
Today ... you both be getting ... a Gold Star. :D
 
Originally posted by muckshifter
... if I could have given my budget for my camera to Quad, I would have. I know I would have gotten the best for my money. You should read some of Quads articles. 8)

I say again, don't take my comment too personally. We have a master in our midst and he needs no defence from me but he does know what he is talking about. We have all "dabbled" in taking a picture ... I would love to have Quads expertise ... 'nuf said.

:bow:
Click to expand...

Looks like you have just awarded me a degree of Ph. D in the subject "Digital Imaging and photography". Do you know what Ph. D stands for? PILE HIGH AND DEEP:D

The secret of my so called success is plethora of magazines, photography websites and a fumbling with my gear for last 30 years, by the way, I am still fumbling with it after all these years :spin:

Hell, I let the secret out!!! :P
 
Back
Top