Digital cameras

[NRG = mc²]

About time to change my 4 year old Olympus 840.

Nikon Coolpix 2000 or Canon Powershot A30?

I'm put off by the Nikon as it doesn't have a viewfinder and the flash is supposed to be poor, has anyone had any personal experience with these?

Thanks

 

[CougTek]

Neither IMO. If I were you, I would get the Fuji FinePix 2650. It's around the same price point as the two others you mentioned IIRC. I've tried it and it produces very good results. The integrated LCD is also quite helpful.

Here's a short review of its predecessor, the FinePix 2600. It's a bit old, but it's better than nothing.

 

[e_dawg]

What are you going to use it for? Mainly web stuff? Will you be printing much? Mostly 8x10's or 4x6's? This will determine what resolution you should get.

Not having any knowledge of what you want to do with it, I would say the Canon G2. The best all-round digicam in the world. 4 MP, razor sharp, great metering, great focussing, minimal shutter lag and recycle time, advanced user controls and program modes, accepts external flash, and is being replaced by the G3, so it should be discounted. Probably around $650. A little pricey, but it's all the digicam you should ever need, and is one of the few non-SLR body digicams pros actually respect.

 

[Handruin]

Neither IMO. If I were you, I would get the Fuji FinePix 2650. It's around the same price point as the two others you mentioned IIRC. I've tried it and it produces very good results. The integrated LCD is also quite helpful.

Here's a short review of its predecessor, the FinePix 2600. It's a bit old, but it's better than nothing.

Fuji Finepix 2650 for $160 USD shipped

or here

 

[NRG = mc²]

Hi,

Thats for the tip COugtek, I'll check put the Fuji's reviews and samples.

e_dawg, I am not going to be printing at all. I want a camera for general use, for display on monitor only.

I'm not looking to spend as much as a G2 costs, but something around the £200 ($300) maximum mark. I already have an ancient Olympus C840 and it works fine - its reasonably good for something that old and 1.3mpix, its only real shortcomings being low lighting conditions, and an occasional pixelation around straight edges (zigzag).

Its just that someone owed me money from a couple of years back and now he payed me (with interest too) so I have some spare cash sitting around that I wasn't expecting.

 

[e_dawg]

Ah, well in that case, the Fuji Finepix 2650 is an excellent value. (I know the 2600 was excellent in most respects -- the only notable shortcoming was with low light conditions, like in dim rooms indoor or in the city at night, which is why I got the Olympus C-2040 instead of the Fuji 2600, which I was also looking at).

The Sony P-51 is more expensive ($230) -- maybe you could find a P-50 on clearance for $150 -- but should be a better performer than the Fuji 26x0.

Olympus D-520 and D-550 are also worth a look at $230 and $280 respectively.

Otherwise, the Canon PShot A20 (there is no A30, or did you mean S30?) and the Nikon CP 2000 are both decent as well.

 

[NRG = mc²]

There is an A30. Perhaps it goes under a different name in the American market but even the Fuji 2650 is actually called an a204 over here... go figure.

I don't like the proprietary card on the Fuji...

 

[blakerwry]

I'm kind of in the same boat you are NRG. I would like a dig camera, mainly for on-screen use, but I may occasionally want some hard copies.


If I need some hard copies I will probably go down to wallgreens(drug store chain in the US that has a photo dept.) and have them print my pics using their equipment. As I don't think it would be practical for me to buy my own printer.

I want a camera that has macro capabilites, has a tripod mount, can take pictures in the same range that 400 speed film can, has a battery life of many hours (atleast long enough to take 50-75 pics), and has a viewfinder that actually matches the resulting picture. I would also like decent optical zoom, different flash modes, and something that is reltively fast from shot to shot.

Most the cameras that I look at are either way below my expectations or are overkill... I just want something in the middle that fits into my budget. Cna you guys make some good recomendations?

The finepix comes close, however it has only ISO 100 sensitivity and I have read that it eats its 2AA bateries.

If you guys have personal experiences with this camera and it not eating batteries I think I might enjoy using this camera. I think that the flash would be able to make up for the ISO sensitivity in most situations, and I can try to control light as best as I can when the flash won't cut it.


* My main pet peeve with batteries is that I am curently stuck using my father's Canon, and I have to buy 4 Lithium AA bateries if I want it to last all day. I almost always turn off the LCD screen and use the view finder exclusively.. however, the view finder does not match up well on close shots so I am stuck using the LCD.

It's a sucky situation considering that 4 Alkaline AA bateries wouldn't last an hour in this thing if I kept the LCD running.

 

[blakerwry]

woops, our current camera is not a canon, it's actually an Olympus

 

[Fushigi]

I want a camera that has macro capabilites, has a tripod mount, can take pictures in the same range that 400 speed film can, has a battery life of many hours (atleast long enough to take 50-75 pics), and has a viewfinder that actually matches the resulting picture. I would also like decent optical zoom, different flash modes, and something that is reltively fast from shot to shot.

Check out a used Canon Powershot G1. The included LiI battery is quite sufficient for 100+ pictures to be written to a Microdrive. If you don't use the LCD, turn it to face the camera and it not only protects it from scratches but saves on power consumption.

It's got most of the manual adjustments one would want but honestly, it's Auto mode is pretty darn good and I find myself just using that instead.

Accepts a tripod mount & external flash, if shooting near your PC it can dump the pics directly to the PC vs. in-camera storage.

Too busy to find a link right now but it was very favorably reviewed by dpreview and others.

- Fushigi

 

[Cliptin]

NRG, Take a look at the A10. It is the older version of the A30. Go back to sleep e-dawg, woof.

blake, Most of your requirements are very easy. What is your budget? Qualifications are needed for "decent" optical zoom and "relatively" fast recycle time. ISO100 is more fine grained than ISO400 but it is not as light sensitive.

The battery consumption issue would probably be solved with rechargable NiMH batteries. My A20 is supposed to take 200-300 shots on 1800 MAh batteries (no flash, no lcd). I had no problem with 40-50.

Rechargable battery resource

Among the members of the forum there are probably 10 different models. Search the forum for applicable threads.

 

[honold]

my vote is neither as well, hehe

for something small, check out the canon elph s230
for something sturdy/semipro, check out the canon s40/s45

as always, see techbargains.com for crazy dell deals on the products

 

[NRG = mc²]

Honold, I can't find the 230 - it probably goes by a different name over here. Keep in mind prices for cameras over here are more than double of those in the US. Check http://www.internetcamerasdirect.co.uk/ to see what I mean.

What I did was I ordered the Fuji that Cougtek reccomended, as well as the Powershot A30 and the Coolpix 2000, its law here that anything bought without seeing it in front of you can be returned opened and used for a full refund within one week of reciept. So that way I get to see which one works best for me

 

[blakerwry]

Interesting, I guess I still have a case of stigma from the old ni-cad rechargable batteries... I never thought rechargable batteries would work better than new Alkalynes.

I'll start researching some NiMH rechargable batteries. Maybe they will work out to be a good stocking stuffer.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Nimh is much much better than alkaline..

Even Nicd I think, its just that their power dropped off very suddenly and so the level indicator was pretty much useless - one second it could show 100% then one minute later the camera stops working.

 

[honold]

just for historical reference, i believe the elph is know as the 'digital ixus' overseas

i trust you'll like one of the cameras you picked up, enjoy

 

[NRG = mc²]

ahh Ixus. Too expensive

 

[blakerwry]

What do you guys think of these products at newegg.com?

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=Go&description=POWEREX+MH-C204F+3-H

The site linked earlier (http://www.imaging-resource.com) recommends this charger, and shows that their 1800 batteries are better than most.


The 1600 series batteries are 1/2 as expensive(as the 1800), however I don't know if they will supply as much power as I would like... acording to the review the 1800's have 12% more power.

 

[Groltz]

Do unscrupulous retailers still make a practice of selling non-US versions of cameras to unsuspecting buyers? (In the US, that is)

I thought I read something about this, regarding film cameras, some years ago.

Could this be why, for instance, I see two versions of the Canon G3 available? The 8120A001AA and the 8120A001.

 

[SteveC]

Do unscrupulous retailers still make a practice of selling non-US versions of cameras to unsuspecting buyers? (In the US, that is)

Yes, they do. Always check to make sure it's the US version you're buying, and buy from a reputable place. There are many places in NYC especially, both online and retail stores, that will sell you non-US versions that you can't get warranty service on.

 

[time]

I don't normally disagree with CougTek's recommendations, but this time I think he was talking through his ass.

Although Fuji is a fine and reputable manufacturer, the FinePix 2650 is definitely not as useful a camera as the Nikon CoolPix 2000:

1. It uses the new xD-Picture Card media rather than CompactFlash
2. Maximum aperture is only F3.5
3. There is no video out
4. There are no "scene" presets
5. It saves weight but loses battery life by using 2 instead of 4 batteries
6. Minimum macro distance is 10cm rather than 4cm
7. There is no 4-way navigation control or quick review button

Here's a review of the FinePix, and here's one of the CoolPix.

The CoolPix 2000 does indeed have a "weak" flash, but I'm not sure why anyone would want a "strong" built-in flash so close to the lens anyway. The range is quoted at 9ft, but it's seemed adequate for everything I've tried it on, so maybe Nikon is a little conservative. Off the top of my head, it doesn't seem less effective than the Canon A30, which Canon optimistically claims is good for 14ft!

From personal experience, I can tell you that the Nikon 2000 unquestionably takes better shots than the Canon A30, independently of the improved pixel count. The lack of a viewfinder is no obstacle in this level of camera (although Nikon will sell you an LCD hood for $10 if you find glare is a problem). Battery life with the LCD blasting away is up to three hours in capture (continuous autofocus) mode, assuming decent 1850mAh NiMH batteries such as Sanyo. You should be able to fill at least a 128MB CompactFlash card with 120 shots on a charge - with the LCD on!

 

[NRG = mc²]

The range is quoted at 9ft, but it's seemed adequate for everything I've tried it on

One of the reviews I read, mentioned the flash was onyl properly effective for 4 feet... yes four!

 

[mubs]

Check out http://www.batterysupply.com/ for rechargebales.

 

[blakerwry]

Heh, I was at bestbuy picking up a DVD and decided to see their prices on NiMH batteries... they had the energizer 1850's with charger for $40... so I snatched it up (good excuse to empty that gift card I've had laying around).


newegg seems to have better prices on the MAHA brand stuff... which is what seems to be recommended. Plus I've shopped at newegg before and had decent service. If I was looking for selection then I might give batterysupply.com a chance

 

[Adcadet]

last Christmas my parents gave my fiance and I a Kodak DX3500. So far I've been pretty happy with it, but my picutre taking needs are modest. My fiance has used a place called ofoto a few times to get 4x6 prints, and it's really hard to tell them from standard pictures unless you really get close and squint. My general impression is that a decent digital camera is sufficient for most people who just need to take pics of friends and post them on the web or make the occasional 4x6.

She's got many pics here, although they've been shunk for web purposes
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~owen0098/Photos/Photos.htm

 

[Cliptin]

She's got many pics here, although they've been shunk for web purposes
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~owen0098/Photos/Photos.htm

No moire. Save us, save us.

 

[Cliptin]

Check out http://www.batterysupply.com/ for rechargebales.

I always buy from this place. :lol:

 

[mubs]

mubs wrote:
Check out http://www.batterysupply.com/ for rechargebales.


I always buy from this place.

Ha ha, you're funny, Cliptin! :wink:

 

[Adcadet]

She's got many pics here, although they've been shunk for web purposes
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~owen0098/Photos/Photos.htm

No moire. Save us, save us.

nice on

 

[time]

... they had the energizer 1850's with charger for $40... so I snatched it up
...
newegg seems to have better prices on the MAHA brand stuff... which is what seems to be recommended.

No, if you read the Imaging Resource info, they found Eveready, Kodak and Sanyo to be the best - all of which of course are in fact Sanyo. That's before we even start talking about cycle life or consistency. When you have four cells in series in a high drain application, these factors matter a lot.

They do recommend Maha chargers, although in a combination of fast and trickle units ... Like the guy says, you can have a charger that's fast, fully charges or is gentle to your batteries - but not all three.

 

[Handruin]

... they had the energizer 1850's with charger for $40... so I snatched it up
...
newegg seems to have better prices on the MAHA brand stuff... which is what seems to be recommended.

No, if you read the Imaging Resource info, they found Eveready, Kodak and Sanyo to be the best - all of which of course are in fact Sanyo. That's before we even start talking about cycle life or consistency. When you have four cells in series in a high drain application, these factors matter a lot.

They do recommend Maha chargers, although in a combination of fast and trickle units ... Like the guy says, you can have a charger that's fast, fully charges or is gentle to your batteries - but not all three.

I don't know who makes the cells for these, but my father has had really good luck with Monster NiMH 1800mAh in his olympus digital camera.

see here

 

[Handruin]

On a side note, I run Sanyo NiMH 3000 mAh batteries in my R/C truck and they are great. All 6 cells are a matched set and I have a high quality charger that specializes in NiMH recharging. The peak detection & chargin amps are very important in prolonging the life of the cells.

 

[blakerwry]

... they had the energizer 1850's with charger for $40... so I snatched it up
...
newegg seems to have better prices on the MAHA brand stuff... which is what seems to be recommended.

No, if you read the Imaging Resource info, they found Eveready, Kodak and Sanyo to be the best - all of which of course are in fact Sanyo. That's before we even start talking about cycle life or consistency. When you have four cells in series in a high drain application, these factors matter a lot.

They do recommend Maha chargers, although in a combination of fast and trickle units ... Like the guy says, you can have a charger that's fast, fully charges or is gentle to your batteries - but not all three.

Yes I read the site, and I realize they are all made by Sanyo... but the price was $40... when compared to the $37 (Maha's comparable product) from newegg, $3 doesnt matter if I can get it now and not a week down the line.

I figured since the batteries and charger came together that it would likely be a good match. Personally, I don't mind long recharge times and would prefer the Maha 100 min "cool charger" and a 3-5 hour trickle charger so that I could get the most out of my batteries. But I think my father might not like to wait, so I the 1 hour charger is probably the best for him.

 

[Dïscfärm]

... they had the energizer 1850's with charger for $40... so I snatched it up
...
newegg seems to have better prices on the MAHA brand stuff... which is what seems to be recommended.

No, if you read the Imaging Resource info, they found Eveready, Kodak and Sanyo to be the best - all of which of course are in fact Sanyo. That's before we even start talking about cycle life or consistency. When you have four cells in series in a high drain application, these factors matter a lot.

They do recommend Maha chargers, although in a combination of fast and trickle units ... Like the guy says, you can have a charger that's fast, fully charges or is gentle to your batteries - but not all three.

Depending on which part of the globe you live, you can buy Rayovac 1600 NiMH batteries and/or a battery charger VERY CHEAPLY at a WalMart, making you wonder why the mail order places charge so much.

http://www.rayovac.com/products/recharge/recharge.shtml

 

[Dïscfärm]

I still use my somewhat-old (circa 1999) Olympus C2500-L, mainly becuase it has excellent low-light capability and I can use both SmartMedia and CompactFlash storage simultaneously (dual-slot).

 

[blakerwry]

Acording to walmart.com, the Rayovac charger is $30 and the batteries (only 1600's) are another $10.

While the batteries are an OK price, and the charger is an OK price, I got top of the line batteries instead of "value" batteries and an acceptable charger for the same price.



*The site (imaging-resource.com) seems to think that the rayovac recharger stinks... and is responsible for overheating batteries and sending them to their doom. While this is probably more related to 1 hour chargers in general and not so much to the rayovac, it is something to watch out for.

 

[Groltz]

I always buy from this place.

Me too.

A MAHA MH-C204F charger and 4 Powerex 1800 mAH AA NiMH Batteries.

It takes the diskman I listen to while running weeks to run down when using these batteries. (90 minutes per day)

 

[time]

One of the reviews I read, mentioned the flash was onyl properly effective for 4 feet... yes four!

It is true that Nikon only claims a flash range of 1.3 meters at maximum telephoto (115mm @35mm), which limits aperture to F5.8, or one quarter of the sensitivity at F2.8.

The review you mentioned tested flash range from 8 to 14 feet at about 100mm equivalent, or F4.9.

IMHO, at normal shooting distances and reasonable focal lengths, there is no real problem. Plus the 2000 throttles down its flash quite well in close-ups - I guess it depends on your expectations.

 

[time]

last Christmas my parents gave my fiance and I a Kodak DX3500 ... My fiance has used a place called ofoto a few times to get 4x6 prints, and it's really hard to tell them from standard pictures unless you really get close and squint. My general impression is that a decent digital camera is sufficient for most people who just need to take pics of friends and post them on the web or make the occasional 4x6.

You should not be able to tell the difference from standard pictures, except perhaps that the digital ones are better.

No offence, but I fear your general impression is due to your camera, although I guess the process at "ofoto" could be substandard.

I just compared results from a Kodak DC4800 to a Nikon 4300 - not a fair comparison, I grant you, but the differences were simply stunning. The 3MP Kodak may as well have been a webcam.

Uncropped two-megapixel shots from a decent digicam are perfectly adequate for 8x10" prints, and even full A4 looks pretty good when compared to a compact film camera. My latest party trick is to get someone to pick a 2MP 8x10 from a 4MP - trust me, it's difficult.

But this is not at all surprising given what was already known about human vision. For most of us, 150 lines per inch is about our limit when looking at a color photo from 25cm (10") under exceptionally good lighting. This climbs to about 300 lines per inch with black and white.

Photo printers achieve an effective resolution of 150-200 lpi, with the best Epson models exceeding this. Capturing more than this in a camera is useful for image processing, but makes no difference to the quality of a print.

 

[NRG = mc²]

The 4mpixel Kodak easyshare LS443 is horrible for its price. Here, it costs double the Canon A30 and the pictures, although obviously larger, are very blurry in comparison and look like someones been messing with the JPEG smoothing options. I had the option to buy this camera for the same price as the Powershot, as a friend of mine works at an electronics high street store and can get selected items at half price. I was about to say yes, thinking it must be at least a little better, but then I looked at the samples, and the fact that it takes proprietary batteries and memory card, and immediately withdrew interest.

He just informed me he can get me the Sony P7 for the same price too... hmm.. this one looks very nice, but takes Sony memory and battery as well...

What do you guys think?