Recommend a digital camera?

We're looking for a new digital camera and wondering if anyone has any recomendations for one that works well for detailed close-up shots, and otherwise for general use?

Looking for a mid priced camera of around $200.

Thank you for your info.

 

I'm super happy with my Fugifilm S700, 7meg, both macro and super macro modes,iso speed choices, + much more, uses either sd or xd memory card, usb connection to computer, and AV outputs.
$219 + cost of memory card from Wallymart.

 

Another one to consider is the Canon Powershot 720IS. It's a compact camera with 8MP of resolution and a 6X zoom range (35mm-210mm equivalent) with image stabilization. The 720IS has a macro mode that can focus on subjects as close as 1cm. It can shoot video clips (640x480 @ 30fps). It has a pretty simple Auto mode as well as full manual mode to accommodate any level of skill. It uses standard SD cards and AA batteries so memory and power are easy to find and cheap. Here are some detailed reviews:

Canon PowerShot A720 IS Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
Steves Digicams - Canon Powershot A720 IS - Hands on Review
DCRP Review: Canon PowerShot A720 IS

 

For around $200 you may still be able to find a 5 megapixel Canon S2is. If not, you might spend a bit more for a newer more megapixels S3is(6MP), or S5is (8MP).
All are great cameras for both close-up modeling and/or railfanning.
Simplicity is this series of camera's big draw.

I had a Canon S2is for 3 years and loved it for it's ease of use. I would still have it but as my layout nears the point where I may send photos in to magazines, I realized I will need more megapixels. I tested out the new (at the time) Canon S5is and almost bought it. Then the salesman at the camera store handed me a Fuji S9000fd. I fell in love with it and bought it.
After using it for 6 months I am wishing that I had gotten the S5is.
Not that the Fuji is a bad camera. Far from it.
It's just that it seems to be very sensitive to the lighting in my basement. Something that my old S2is didn't have a problem with.

 

If you really want to research cameras, features, etc.,

>>>>>HERE is a good place to start<<<<<

I just purchased a new camera back in late November and researched the dang things for months. The website I linked was invaluable in helping me make my decision.

 

I have a Canon PowerShot SX100 IS. It lists for $300, but I got mine for around $250, and have seen it more recently on sale for $200 with rebate. It has 8 megapixel resolution and what I think is exceptional macro capability, a must for model photography. The standard memory card is rather limited. I upgraded to a 1Gb card for $20.

 

whell mine might be over your buget i forget the name though but it is a cannon

 

Hmmm, No one listed the very best digital for model railroading. I vote for the Canon A620. It is 7.1 mp (all you need), a macro that focuses to 1 cm! (1/2in.). 4 power zoom lens (forget digital zoom) Small enough to get into most spaces. The BEST thing about it however is the Vari-screen on the back. This screen folds out and into most positions you want. You always get to see what you photograph. You can even turn it 180* so you can see yourself. You can hold it over a mountain and see the shot down the other side. Best of my 5 digitals. It has been superceded by a A650IS model, but it is out of your price range and a bit bigger than the A620. Some people on Z Central Station mentioned that they got theirs for a $100-$125 on ebay. If this thread goes on forever everyone will put THEIR camera in as the best. Take it from a professional--A620 for you. Cheers, Jim CCRR Check out some of my photos under Socalz44.

 

Canon

I just recently picked up a Canon PowerShot A630 - LOVE IT!!!!!!!

:thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up:
​

 

At the $200-300 price point, with a little research on the web at sites like dgpreview (link is above on a previous post), you can narrow down your search to five or so very competent cameras. You won't be disappointed with any of the top five. Try not to buy at a big box store unless you are sure of what you are getting--my opinion is that they offer the second-latest generation instead of what you want, which is the latest generation.

Don't get entranced by the mega-pixel race. Yes, you can cram 10 Mpixels on a very small sensor, but the image quality will be far inferior to 6 Mpixels on a larger sensor. I always look at the size (usually in mm, on the box or spec sheet). The quality and optical capability of the lens on the camera is far more important than the number of pixels. On the more expensive digital cameras, we've gotten to the point where anything over about 6 mpixels is a point of diminishing return: the increased pixels just show how good or bad your lens is.

With a small sensor--which you are talking about in a $250 digital--my opinion is that anything over 6 Mpixels will do just fine, up to and including publication. Learn about sensor size--it's usually somewhere on the box or in the spec sheet.

I can go on about this forever, but don't have time tonight. Ask questions, or search the forum--there have been many previous threads discussing exactly this issue.

 

Wot Pete sez If the lens isn't good, 100MP won't make any difference - just a much bigger file to clog your system up with.

My wife spends my earnings on printer ink making 10x8 prints from her (several years old now) Canon Ixus 400 with a 4MP sensor. No problem with resolution (except when she shakes the camera). Bought on recommendation of a magazine review.

It's so good a couple of years later I bought an Ixus60 (5MP I think) (also top rated by the same reviewer) which is also brilliant.

The latest version (Canon Ixus 960 IS) is still top rated by the reviewer. (It has 12MP, but they do say it is a bit pointless )

Oh, nearly forgot - they are small, so easy to carry around, etc.

 

I can get rather long-winded on the subject of resolution in digital imaging, which I did in a series of articles back in the late 80s. No one can realistically wade through the overabundance of camera reviews on the Web--I certainly can't, and photography is pretty serious for me.

A good camera is a tool that you are comfortable with, but it's only one tool in a whole system. Hook a great Nikon pro camera up to a lousy printer, and you get lousy results. Hook a lousy camera up to a great printer, and you get lousy results. Hook a great lens up to a lousy imager . . . and so forth.

Good printers are cheap today. But paper and supplies are expensive! Great printers are available for about $500--but paper and supplies are still expensive.

At $250 or so, I'd first look at the true camera "brands" such as Nikon and Canon. They'll be at least 20% more expensive for the same features, but you know what you are getting. Then I'd look at a brand with a good reputation for lens quality, such as Sony. I just don't know about other brands, other than by what I read.

Look at how you will use the camera in the next 18 months, no longer. How many prints are you going to make, and at what size? Are you just going to post images to the Web, in which case 10 mpixels is a waste of money. Some cell phone cameras can produce perfectly acceptable 3 x 5s.

So, think of your whole system, end to end. Then test out a few cameras, buy the one you like, and realize that you made a 95% deal. There might be something out there 5% better, but how long do you want to spend looking for it?

 

There are a lot of worthy cameras out there but as several people have stated here, the Canon A620, A630, A640 are great value for money. If you're not a professional photographer and want to get something easy to use, they work great. The positionable LCD, the awesome Macro capabilities and the form-factor make it a great buy. Many digital cameras have become so small that they are uncomfortable to hold. The Canon have a nice little bulge in the battery area that make them easy to hold on to. I've had both an A620 and an A630 and enjoyed them both.
This is not something to be sneered at. Go down to your camera store and handle several of the small digitals. I mean walk around, take pictures form different angles, put them down and pick them up again. Most of them are so small that you will either drop them or come close to dropping them, especially of you have big hands. That's one of the main reasons that I picked that Canon series; I could hold on to them securely. Also unlike most digital cameras being made nowadays, they have both an LCD display and a viewfinder.

 

Well said. I too grow tired of the megapixel race. Increasing MP is purely a marketing ploy. While companies keep increasing the resolution of their sensors every year, the sensors are staying the same size and are fundamentally based on the same technology. This means each light-gathering pixel on the sensor is getting smaller. The trouble is, the smaller the pixel, the more susceptible it is to electrical interference. And that means NOISE. As a result, many of the digital cameras in today's consumer market are actually noisier than their counterparts from a few years ago. This is not so noticeable when you're taking high light pics (railfanning at noon). But it can have quite an impact on low light shots (such as the layout in the basement). So noise reduction technology is actually one major way the better camera makers distinguish themselves.

As far as manufacturers, here's my broad-brush opinion on the ones making something in your price range:

Canon - Read enough reviews and you'll find Canon's focus is on making good general-use cameras. Canon strives to deliver the best balance of features rather than being the best at any particular thing. But they also aren't poor at anything. Canon combines good lenses, a decent user interface, a good range of control options, and popular features with an excellent noise reduction system to make cameras that provide some of the best versatility available.

Panasonic - Though not a traditional camera maker, Panasonic has carved out a name for itself by being the company that tries harder. Over the years, they've produced a good line of cameras that perform well and have just made their first foray into the high-end dSLR market. Panasonic's partnership with Leica has yielded the best low-end consumer camera lenses available - bar none. But Panasonic's noise reduction system has been troublesome, marring what could be otherwise outstanding image capturing by their lenses. This by no means implies Panasonic cameras aren't good. But it does mean the way they image is a matter of preference. You either really like it or you don't.

Nikon - In the past Nikon made some excellent consumer cameras. But today it's all too apparent that Nikon is focused exclusively on their dSLR market. While Nikon still makes a few point-and-shoot offerings, they tend to fair poorly next to the competition.

Kodak - Hands down the simplest cameras to use to take pictures AND get them into the real world. Others could learn a thing or two from Kodak's EasyShare system. Kodak cameras are excellent choices for the technologically challenged. But the offerings of this once-giant of photography are only mediocre when compared to those of their competitors.

Sony - Often hailed as the king of ergonomics, Sony has made good performing cameras with intuitive interfaces. But they have recently succumbed to their own marketing hype and pushed their cameras too far just to say have something else they can put on the box the camera comes in. Recent marketing decisions have really hurt their camera line and resulted in something of a consumer backlash. Hopefully the criticism Sony's received recently from reviewers and owners will steer them back to making good cameras. But until then, I'd look elsewhere. Though you could always find a Sony from a couple of years ago.

Samsung - What doesn't this Korean consumer electronics giant make? And most of their stuff is quite good. But cameras aren't a forte for them yet and you'll find they generally don't compare well to their competitors.

Casio - a manufacturer to watch as they're doing some innovative things. But their current cameras are typically poor performers.

Olympus - Still in the point-and-shoot game, if barely. While their dSLRs are respectable, you can do better than their nothing-but-average consumer offerings.

Fuji - the anomaly in the market, Fuji dances to its own drum. This has been good and bad. Many of their cameras are slow, and have odd quirks in the way they perform. Only recently has Fuji begun to abandon the arcane and limited xD card storage system and many can't understand their stubborn insistence on ignoring image stabilization. If you can get past their quirkiness, Fuji's lineup can have a lot to offer. For example, until recently Fuji was the lone hold-out from the MP race. They created the SuperCCD, a sensor capable that, while a bit lower in resolution, offered low noise levels unrivaled by anything except true dSLRs. Fuji's Finepix F series cameras achieved legendary status for their excellent low-noise imaging. The F10 through F40 point-and-shoots so outclass competitors in low light situations that it's embarrassing. So when Fuji gave in and released the new, noisier 12MP F50fd, people were stunned. And the prices of used F series predecessors immediately began climbing. Still, the F50fd is no slouch in low light and if indoor photography is the primary goal, I'd still put at the top of the list of choices.

 

Very nice review, Flandry! It's nice to hear from someone aware of the lower $ digital market, and the players. Aside from shooting with mirrors, the big, honking dSLRs can't get into tight spaces, so I'm still looking for a competent "little" camera. This helps my search.

 

Flandry;

You left out Hassleblad!

 

Lownen, You left out that the original price range was under $200 on this particular thread. Does Hassleblad make a digital camera? I haven't heard the name in over 30 years. Cheers, Jim CCRR

 

Got about $25K to spare for the body alone? They are still very much in business.