Author |
Message |
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 7:47 am
My digital camera died an untimely death and I am looking to purchase a new one. My last one was a Nikon and I was not too thrilled with it mainly because the lag time between shots could be frustratingly long and I would miss good photo ops waiting for the camera to ready itself for the next shot. This is the camera I am leaning towards - CLICK HERE - because it gets such good reviews. Any suggestions or advice from others before I make a purchase would be appreciated. Thanks!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 7:56 am
That looks like a fine camera. Of course, it all depends on your particular needs, which involve size, weight, features, cost, etc. I doubt that you will see a huge improvement in shutter lag (the time between pressing the shutter and the camera taking the picture) though you will see an improvement in the time between shots. What kind of pictures do you take with your camera? Knowing that would help with suggestions or advice. LOL - By the way, it's very smart of you to ask these questions before buying the camera. I've lost track of the number of people who ask if they have made a good purchase, after buying the camera!
|
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:14 am
I just need a nice point and shoot. Most of my pictures are family pictures, although I do like to take nature shots sometimes. Time between shots is what frustrated me the most about my last camera and that's what I am looking to improve on the most. When you have 4 children running around, you don't want to miss a chance at the perfect photo op waiting for your camera to refresh. Do you have any suggestions? It seems like Canon is the hands down favorite on the web, but what got me asking this is an advertisement from Kodak for this one - CLICK HERE.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:30 am
Being a pro photographer, I tend to favor the big name brands like Canon and Nikon. However, what I want in a camera (even in a point and shoot) may differ from what the general public wants. Kodak is a very interesting company in how they have marketed their cameras. They have been extremely successful at marketing and selling to women (note that I am not suggesting that this is a bad thing but rather interesting) and much less successful at marketing to men. I have to be careful how I phrase this and I hope everyone understands that these are general observations and everyone is an individual. Men tend to like gadgets more than women. So a guy may be more inclined to buy a camera and tinker around with it whereas most women just want to take pictures and get results. Kodak has done a very good job of marketing that. The problem with Kodak is that sometimes when a company tries to make things easier, it ends up making them more difficult. So I'm not a huge fan of Kodak cameras .... but now you know my perspective. 
|
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:36 am
I think I will try the Canon one I posted the link to in my first post. Thanks so much for all your help, Jimmer!
|
Bonzacat
Member
07-08-2003
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:37 am
I have the SD750 and love it. The 3" LCD is a thing of beauty! Based on all the reviews I've read and the photo quality I've seen with Canon Vs. Kodak, I would stick with Canon. I also have a Nikon CP5400, and the improvement of both shutter lag and the time between shots (when comparing the Nikon to the Canon) is remarkable. The Canon is really lightening fast. Hermione, do you use any photo editing software to enhance digital photos before printing or sharing? The SD750 adds a bit extra red to some low light shots that is easy to correct in Photoshop. Honestly, that is the only negative I've found so far with the Canon --- it really is a total winner in my book.
|
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:40 am
Hey Bonza, yes, I have a Mac and the iPhoto program is excellent at getting rid of most red-eyes. Okay, I think I have found my next camera! Thanks again everyone!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:40 am
You're welcome Hermione. One concern I might have with that particular model is that it doesn't have a viewfinder (but it does have the big LCD!). Has not having a viewfinder caused you any problems Bonza? Have you gone to a store and held one in your hands Hermione? Sometimes that is a good final step, even if you plan to order over the Internet.
|
Yankee_in_ca
Member
08-01-2000
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:41 am
I got my Nikon D40x for my birthday... 
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:42 am
That's a pretty sweet little camera, Yankee!
|
Bonzacat
Member
07-08-2003
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:47 am
Ya know, Jimmer, I was concerned about the no viewfinder issue. Because of that, I poured over cameras and reviews for some that have a 2.5" LCD and still also have room for the viewfinder. Canon has several. In the end, the 3" LCD won out. It compensates in low light and is incredibly bright. The only time I've missed the viewfinder was in a few outdoor situations in full sun. That's been the only time I found it difficult to see the LCD clearly. So when outside in full sun, I sometimes take a few extra shots just to make sure I get what I want. 
|
Bonzacat
Member
07-08-2003
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:50 am
Also, I did a lot of in-store comparison and looking at a 2.5" LCD next to a 3" LCD was just a huge draw to the 3". I have had a Canon SD300 for maybe 3 years. It has a 2" LCD + a viewfinder, and I was really ready for that 3".
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:55 am
That is really helpful Bonza. A while ago I would never have considered a camera without a viewfinder but the LCD and battery technology has improved greatly and you have the advantage of a much larger screen. It is beautiful. The only thing that people need to remember when using an LCD rather than the viewfinder is they still need to hold the camera steady and not waive it around out in front of them.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 10:43 am
Hermi - I have a Casio EX-Z850, and it has a couple of features that work REALLLLLY well for taking multiple pictures. One of them is this feature where you hold down the button, and it takes a picture every second until you release the button. I think that's really good for shots of sports sequences, or perhaps kids moving around and doing silly things. That way you don't lose any "moments". There are also those "burst 3" or "burst 5" features that lots of cameras have that automatically take 3 or 5 pics over a period of a couple of seconds. Again, I use that for my boyfriend's rugby games, but could be good for the kiddies as well. These features are becoming pretty standard, it's just a matter of remembering you have them, and then using them. When I go to rugby games, I have it automatically set to take burst 3, and then I switch to the "continuous photo" setting, if I want to take pics of longer sequences. The only thing that you need to take advantage of these settings is a large enough memory card to hold the pictures, because you're taking 3 times as many. I have a 4G card, and I NEVER use it all up. At 8 megapixels, I go out and take 200 shots, and I don't even get CLOSE to filling it up. As long as you're coming home and uploading the pics to your computer periodically, I don't think memory on a burst/continuous mode should be a problem. But to deal with the shutter lag issue, I thought I'd mention those features to you, just in case you hadn't used them before. It's something to look for/try out.
|
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 5:45 pm
Thanks, Eeyore. Those "burst 3" or "burst 5" features sound really neat. I'm gonna go to Best Buy tomorrow and talk to someone there, too, before I make my decision. 
|