Recommend an ultracompact digital camera

[eflat]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I need to purchase an ultracompact ASAP. I am leaving on a 14 day cruise on November 3rd. I'd like the following:

Ultracompact
SD Memory
At least 3x zoom
Lightweight
4MP+
Good flash
QUALITY Pictures

I have the SD400 and it's image quality is unacceptable. The obvious choice is the SD5x0 one which is an improvement over the SD400, I hear, but I am not sure if the Image Quality is better. Any other choices I am missing? Perhaps Pentax or Nikon? I have not been keeping up with digital photography tech. Thanks a bunch.

casio exislim FTW

however it's image quality will be WORSE. because the SD400 is the top rated ultracompact camera. the SD5x0 will not be any better.


the next step up is a digital slr. which you need if you want better quality. because frankly any picture taken out of one of those tiny cameras is going to look like crap because the lens is so small. you might find the pentax *ist just what you are looking for. it's pretty damned small for an slr and takes great pics. especially if you shoot raw.

 

[andylawcc]

yeah, my sister has a Pentax Optico 4 (same thing as the Casico Exlim) and the picture quality is imo better than my canon SD110. however, my Canon is a bit smaller overall.

the Optico S4i, on the other hand, is featurepacked.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I need to purchase an ultracompact ASAP. I am leaving on a 14 day cruise on November 3rd. I'd like the following:

Ultracompact
SD Memory
At least 3x zoom
Lightweight
4MP+
Good flash
QUALITY Pictures

I have the SD400 and it's image quality is unacceptable. The obvious choice is the SD5x0 one which is an improvement over the SD400, I hear, but I am not sure if the Image Quality is better. Any other choices I am missing? Perhaps Pentax or Nikon? I have not been keeping up with digital photography tech. Thanks a bunch.

casio exislim FTW

however it's image quality will be WORSE. because the SD400 is the top rated ultracompact camera. the SD5x0 will not be any better.


the next step up is a digital slr. which you need if you want better quality. because frankly any picture taken out of one of those tiny cameras is going to look like crap because the lens is so small. you might find the pentax *ist just what you are looking for. it's pretty damned small for an slr and takes great pics. especially if you shoot raw.

The next step up isn't dslr's. For his need of an ultracompact, there is no step up at all for cameras. What it needs is a step up in photography ability. HE needs to get better at tacking pictures, properly choosing iso, shutter times, arp, lighting arrangements, things like that.

If he wants something better without learning that stuff, he's going to have to get a bigger camera which can house a bigger lens that is capable of what he wants. Going to the A or S series (for canon), or even larger into the prosumer series, like the Pana FZ20,30, Nikon 8000 series, like the 8700, 8800. Or, the smaller prosumers like the Canon S2 IS, Pana FZ5, Sony H1.

Since he wants small though, he just has to get better at taking pictures and post processing.

 

[mitaiwan82]

I think you're too picky about picture quality to get a ultracompact....go get yourself a dSLR for QUALITY

 

[Camby]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I need to purchase an ultracompact ASAP. I am leaving on a 14 day cruise on November 3rd. I'd like the following:

Ultracompact
SD Memory
At least 3x zoom
Lightweight
4MP+
Good flash
QUALITY Pictures

I have the SD400 and it's image quality is unacceptable. The obvious choice is the SD5x0 one which is an improvement over the SD400, I hear, but I am not sure if the Image Quality is better. Any other choices I am missing? Perhaps Pentax or Nikon? I have not been keeping up with digital photography tech. Thanks a bunch.

casio exislim FTW

however it's image quality will be WORSE. because the SD400 is the top rated ultracompact camera. the SD5x0 will not be any better.


the next step up is a digital slr. which you need if you want better quality. because frankly any picture taken out of one of those tiny cameras is going to look like crap because the lens is so small. you might find the pentax *ist just what you are looking for. it's pretty damned small for an slr and takes great pics. especially if you shoot raw.

The next step up isn't dslr's. For his need of an ultracompact, there is no step up at all for cameras. What it needs is a step up in photography ability. HE needs to get better at tacking pictures, properly choosing iso, shutter times, arp, lighting arrangements, things like that.

If he wants something better without learning that stuff, he's going to have to get a bigger camera which can house a bigger lens that is capable of what he wants. Going to the A or S series (for canon), or even larger into the prosumer series, like the Pana FZ20,30, Nikon 8000 series, like the 8700, 8800. Or, the smaller prosumers like the Canon S2 IS, Pana FZ5, Sony H1.

Since he wants small though, he just has to get better at taking pictures and post processing.

Just got my first compact digital camera, a Sony P200. Was wondering though, you say better at taking pictures, such as choosing ISO and the rest. Do you have some pointers for this stuff, or a link to where I can read more about them?

 

[hevnsnt]

I have a sony DSC-T7 (5.1) that I am selling in FS/FT right now.. We can make a deal if you want it

 

[rh71]

I only read halfway through this thread... I have an SD400 and agree the flash sucks (therefore the noise in pics sucks) and the SD5x0 is supposed to have a better/stronger flash. You won't do much better if you need it to be an ultracompact IMO. Too bad.

 

[Lounatik]

Originally posted by: Camby

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I need to purchase an ultracompact ASAP. I am leaving on a 14 day cruise on November 3rd. I'd like the following:

Ultracompact
SD Memory
At least 3x zoom
Lightweight
4MP+
Good flash
QUALITY Pictures

I have the SD400 and it's image quality is unacceptable. The obvious choice is the SD5x0 one which is an improvement over the SD400, I hear, but I am not sure if the Image Quality is better. Any other choices I am missing? Perhaps Pentax or Nikon? I have not been keeping up with digital photography tech. Thanks a bunch.

casio exislim FTW

however it's image quality will be WORSE. because the SD400 is the top rated ultracompact camera. the SD5x0 will not be any better.


the next step up is a digital slr. which you need if you want better quality. because frankly any picture taken out of one of those tiny cameras is going to look like crap because the lens is so small. you might find the pentax *ist just what you are looking for. it's pretty damned small for an slr and takes great pics. especially if you shoot raw.

The next step up isn't dslr's. For his need of an ultracompact, there is no step up at all for cameras. What it needs is a step up in photography ability. HE needs to get better at tacking pictures, properly choosing iso, shutter times, arp, lighting arrangements, things like that.

If he wants something better without learning that stuff, he's going to have to get a bigger camera which can house a bigger lens that is capable of what he wants. Going to the A or S series (for canon), or even larger into the prosumer series, like the Pana FZ20,30, Nikon 8000 series, like the 8700, 8800. Or, the smaller prosumers like the Canon S2 IS, Pana FZ5, Sony H1.

Since he wants small though, he just has to get better at taking pictures and post processing.

Just got my first compact digital camera, a Sony P200. Was wondering though, you say better at taking pictures, such as choosing ISO and the rest. Do you have some pointers for this stuff, or a link to where I can read more about them?

Check out these sites:

1.Digi Camera HQ

2. Photo.net

3. DC Reviews

4. PC Photo Review

5. Imaging Resource


I just bought a Konica Minolta x60 and I like it a good bit. As long as you are aware of the limitations of these small cameras, then some of their drawbacks shouldnt be too bad.


Peace

Lounatik

 

[0roo0roo]

he wants sharpness. canons are known for being slightly soft, not detail lost, just how it looks straight outa the camera. can sharpen with unsharp filter or whatever in photo edit programs.

that being said if he wants sharpness u gota have bigger nicer lense and sensor, like those in slr or near slr cams. small sensor = only good at 50-100iso. rest of settings are noisy jokes. that and enough megapixels that one can resample down to per pixel detail

 

[Baked]

Can't take a good pic w/ a Canon point and shoot Elph series digicam? User error *ding ding ding*

BTW, it's not it's, it's its.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Sure thing. And in case anyone is curious. I don't use any digital zoom.

Outside and sunny.

Kids, look at their skin. They are running around but even the ones standing still look like they have motion blur

Right quarter of the picture looks noisy

S45 Pic I like. I can add more later.

Good picture. Skin tone, colors. Very 'smooth'

so the one you like has one image as it's primary focus and the ones you don't like are more just landscape shots with no particular image of focus and it's all the camera's fault. i'm sure.

to me, they all looked liked fine pictures.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Konica Minolta

It's the size of a pack of cigarettes.

 

[RudeBoie]

I'm planning to get a SD550 myself. Its image quality is pretty much as good as it gets from everything I've read (of course opinions are......subjective) for the ultra compact line.

 

[trinketsummoner]

Originally posted by: alien42
have you looked at the panasonic fx9?

it has a leica lens and a lot of nice features.

FTW