Cheap but serviceable camera?

[Mike64]

I've never had much use for a digital camera, I rarely even take snapshots, but the time has come... Basically I need one as a sort of input device for my computer - to illustrate web posts, emails, maybe Ebay someday, etc. I have a decent webcam, but it's just not the same. Oh, and and I'm cheap. I want to spend as little as possible for something serviceable. Around $100 or less if it's possible.

Don't need many bells or whistles, just need to be able to take clear photos at close-to-macro range with reasonably good color reproduction; ideally it'd do well in low-light, but I assume that's too much to ask for an inexpensive camera. And anyway, I can't really think of too many situations in which I won't be able to use flash, and will usually be able to supply additional lighting if it's necessary. I won't be photographing many, if any, moving objects let alone fast ones. Nor will I be making many prints, let alone large ones, so massive pixels are unnecessary. Size, battery life, etc. aren't very important, since I won't be carrying it around with me much. Oh, and while it seems to be ubiquitous these days, I don't care about recording video.

I've looked at various stickies, product reviews, selection guides, etc., but none seem to address my particular need. So... can anyone think of something current or recently discontinuied that fits my bill?

 

[CuriousMike]

You should watch woot dot com -- the frequently have P&S cameras for < $100.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Buy something used.

Pretty much any decent brand camera from the last 5 or 7 years will suit. Find a Nikon or Canon or Sony on Craigslist that's cheap and take it home. The battery might be a bit below perfect, the finish might be all scratched up, it might "only" be 8 megapixel. But I'd bet you can find one for $50.

Don't buy some shitty Korean off-brand for $65. That just sucks and might end up not doing what you need in the long run.

 

[fralexandr]

you can get some used panasonic zs series point and shoots for <$100 on amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC...&qid=1340706746&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+zs5

like stated before, craigslist is a good place to look, and woot sometimes has camera deals

otherwise these are probably the best you can do,
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...0&amp;mnp=&amp;mxp=100

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Nikon Coolpix L24, Refurbished by Nikon (better than new) for $42.

http://www.adorama.com/INKCPL24BKR.html

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Used or refurbished is a good way to go. The Canon A-series (e.g., A610, A3100) is cheap and commonly available. I have seen many in pawnshops in the $40-$70 range. You can find new ones in the $90-$100 range occasionally at Target, Best Buy, etc.

 

[Mike64]

Thanks for the suggestions. I actually go by Adorama fairly often, so I think I'll go check out that Coolpix in person if they have it in-store - you certainly can't beat the price for a "new" camera, but it's not an urgent need so I'll also keep an eye on woot.com (which I'd never heard of) too and maybe check out B&H, though I hate their store with a passion (not the business, the physical layout.)

I did take a quick look at craigslist but - and this is true of craigslist here in general - unlike the good deals I hear about people getting in other places, New York residents tend to be delusional about what their used stuff is worth. (As in, you can usually do better just by googling! ) And since I know absolutely nothing about digicams, I sort of hesitate to buy a used one with no recourse for later problems anyway.

 

[ElFenix]

my advice for regular compact cameras:
set your budget (never more than $200) and then buy whatever canon/panasonic/sony happens to strike your immediate fancy within that budget. any time spent agonizing over the very minor differences in camera performance would be much better spent reading the manual and learning how to use the camera, as that will get you better photos than spending hours before purchase trying to weigh the differences. especially if you don't know what you're doing beforehand.

 

[Mike64]

Nikon Coolpix L24, Refurbished by Nikon (better than new) for $42.

I was really liking the looks of this until I checked the Amazon reviews where it got 67/200 one-star reviews. Seems the battery door has a definite habit of breaking and Nikon won't repair it under warranty (sigh), so even though they're refurbished, I hesitate to take a chance on the entire model. I'm kinda leaning toward this Canon Powershot A1200 at the moment, I think, though I haven't done any 3D shopping yet.

 

[Throckmorton]

Stop obsessing and just buy a camera

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Review of the A1200 and comparison with the L24:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_A1200/verdict.shtml

The A1200 actually looks pretty fantastic for the price, and is definitely a better camera overall than the L24. $75 vs. $42, though, is a pretty big difference.

The A1200 does great macro (3cm closest focusing distance) but the lack of Image Stabilization is a disappointment. You say you don't need low-light, but IS can improve a lot of shots.... just be sure to buy a cheap desktop tripod for your eBay photos and you'll be okay without IS.

 

[TechFinder21]

Even without the optical image stabilization, the A1200 is a great value for less than $100. Considering that you won't be taking many pictures of moving objects, this camera should serve its purpose well. The A800 is another low-price option.

 

[notposting]

We have picked up a couple of the ELPH 100 HS (one for ourselves and one as a gift). Nice little cameras. I see Newegg with a couple Canon A series that include the digital IS, but the ELPH include the optical stabilizing and a nice back lit sensor. Could be worth it to save up for a couple more months.

I did some research last winter, the ELPH 100 was well regarded on Steve's Digicams and the Imaging Resource. I would definitely say to stick a good name--Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony...

 

[JohnnyRebel]

The A1200 actually looks pretty fantastic for the price, and is definitely a better camera overall than the L24. $75 vs. $42, though, is a pretty big difference.

Agreed. I like the A1200. I would say that the price difference is about right for the quality difference.

JR

 

[VirtualLarry]

I own a Canon A1100 , and I like it a lot.

 

[Muse]

If all you need is something for the occasional snapshot you should be able to pick up something for under 20 bucks off ebay.

 

[happysmiles]

hassleblad are cheap!

 

[Muse]

Even without the optical image stabilization, the A1200 is a great value for less than $100. Considering that you won't be taking many pictures of moving objects, this camera should serve its purpose well. The A800 is another low-price option.

The A1300 is selling for $109 and has a viewfinder and digital IS. How's this for a value P&S?

 

[notposting]

The A1300 is selling for $109 and has a viewfinder and digital IS. How's this for a value P&S?

Just keep an eye on sales. Bought both of our ELPH 100 HS's with optical IS for $109 or under. But no viewfinder. All about compromises on the low end of things.

 

[Muse]

Just keep an eye on sales. Bought both of our ELPH 100 HS's with optical IS for $109 or under. But no viewfinder. All about compromises on the low end of things.

I guess Elph's are smaller. Smaller is a good thing in and of itself. I'm wondering if the IS on the A1300 is true IS or just something that enhances the zoom.

I have an awesome DSLR (Pentax K-x), that I absolutely love but it's big and I need something smaller. I'm sick of my Samsung Digimax V3's very poor battery life. It's not that much bigger and heavier than the A1300 but the battery problem is huge. Even with Eneloops it's unreliable, slow as an old cow too (e.g. 7 seconds between shots)!

A viewfinder is pretty high on my list of desirable features, I've never had a camera without one and the cameras I have with LCD screens, well, I always use the viewfinder anyway.

 

[Muse]

Just keep an eye on sales. Bought both of our ELPH 100 HS's with optical IS for $109 or under. But no viewfinder. All about compromises on the low end of things.

That ELPH 100 HS is so cute! And that big 3" LCD is enticing. I'd get used to the LCD only, but like I say, not sure if I'd feel OK not having a viewfinder, never having shot without one exclusively. I suppose the IS is the main difference, and it is significantly smaller. I'm partial to AA's over Lithium. My Samsung V3 doesn't have IS and I've done OK with it. Well, I do get a lot of unusable shots, but they are very much in the minority. The A1300 has .8 fps multi-picture mode. The ELPH 100 HS has 3.4 fps! A review I read said that Canon overstated this, but even so, even 2 fps sounds fantastic compared to what my Samsung V3 can do, or even .8 fps for that matter. None of them are going to touch my Pentax DSLR's 5+ fps, but the Samsung's just dog slow and pretty frustrating for anything more than a few snap shots.

 

[notposting]

Yeah, I am pretty happy with it, we had an old Canon S2 from several years ago but the low/indoor light performance was nothing special, and the flash would take forever to charge...in our case we have a (now) toddler and wanted something better. I think the backlit sensor definitely helps quite a bit.

Was rather stunning to see where technology in camera's has progressed since the last time we bought a camera...optical IS, 12MP, backlit sensor, decent little lens, all in a tiny package and barely over a hundred. We bought an extra camera pack for ours, the camera lasts around 3-400 shots I would say, so it's pretty nice not worrying about it.

Looks like they have an upgrade this year but haven't seen any reviews of it.

 

[Throckmorton]

That ELPH 100 HS is so cute! And that big 3" LCD is enticing. I'd get used to the LCD only, but like I say, not sure if I'd feel OK not having a viewfinder, never having shot without one exclusively. I suppose the IS is the main difference, and it is significantly smaller. I'm partial to AA's over Lithium. My Samsung V3 doesn't have IS and I've done OK with it. Well, I do get a lot of unusable shots, but they are very much in the minority. The A1300 has .8 fps multi-picture mode. The ELPH 100 HS has 3.4 fps! A review I read said that Canon overstated this, but even so, even 2 fps sounds fantastic compared to what my Samsung V3 can do, or even .8 fps for that matter. None of them are going to touch my Pentax DSLR's 5+ fps, but the Samsung's just dog slow and pretty frustrating for anything more than a few snap shots.

After those 3.4fps shots, it will spend a long time writing to the card

 

[Muse]

After those 3.4fps shots, it will spend a long time writing to the card

There's some Canon's (ELPH's?) in the $200 range that have a super slow motion feature involving 250 fps! I'm wondering about that because if it does what I hope, it would be great for analyzing my golf swing. Anyone know about this feature? It just sounds unbelievable...

 

[ElFenix]

There's some Canon's (ELPH's?) in the $200 range that have a super slow motion feature involving 250 fps! I'm wondering about that because if it does what I hope, it would be great for analyzing my golf swing. Anyone know about this feature? It just sounds unbelievable...

iirc there's casios that do 600 fps

usually the resolution is very low because the write speed is limited