I think most cybershots take AA rechargables these days. I wanted one that used a more advanced battery as digital EAT AA's so frickin fast! I go thru them like candy. But no such luck...... I think I need to purchase stock in Duracell...
Printable View
I think most cybershots take AA rechargables these days. I wanted one that used a more advanced battery as digital EAT AA's so frickin fast! I go thru them like candy. But no such luck...... I think I need to purchase stock in Duracell...
I've spent the last two weeks researching and looking at small digital cameras. My beloved Kodak is just too big, and I want something I can slip into my pocket. I have it narrowed down to two cameras and I have a few questions for anyone who has these. The Canon elph sd600 6.0mp and Sony CSD-W70 Cybershot 7.2mp
The problem with the Sony seems to be that the case is a little flimsy. It appears to be completely plastic and when you open the battery cover and ac connecter, it IS plastic. There also seems to be a lot of people out there who have their Sony LCD crack on them easily, without any reason (according to the reviews.) I'm concerned about all this because I mostly want to take it on rides with me. I looked at both cameras at the store, couldn't decide and they told me to take this one home and try it out for 14 days, and bring it back if I decide against it. I like the features, I can buy an adapter and use lenses/filters on it, and I get excellent photos with it. I will have to change to memory stick, as I already have sd. I'm just sort of scared to do much with it, it seems so delicate. Anyone have one of these and care to comment?
All the reviewers, c-net, Steve's digicams, etc. love love love the Canon SD600 Elph The case is metal, and it appears much sturdier. I like to take closeups, flowers and such, so I was wondering if there would be a significant difference between the 6mp and the 7.2mp Sony. There is no battery meter, and battery life is shorter than the Sony, but the battery life over all is better than with AA. C-net ranked this camera much higher than the Sony. Steve's digicam ranked it #1 in ultra-compact cameras and the Sony about #4 in compact digital cams, it's cheaper and I can use the SD cards I already have.
After all the reviews and trying these cams in the store, I would go with the Canon, but the only drawback is the difference in the 6 and 7.2 resolution. I'd like to hear from anyone who has either of these or comparable cameras.
The things I insist on are:
1) optical viewfinder
2) movie mode (yeah it's not great, but I still like it for my physics class)
3) small enough for my pocket.
4) under $250 (with all of the sales coming up this week, I thought this would be a great time)
Thanks for any help you can give me!:confused:
What kind of pictures are you thinking of taking with it?
6 mp seems plenty for walkin' around snapshots that could blow up fine and still give you plenty of clarity for cropping.
Unless you are doing some serious photography with it - at which point I'd say you are probably looking in the wrong market segment - then I think given the pros and cons you spell out, the Canon is perfect for you.
Can I add my request as well? I'd like a digi camera I can take on the bike AND take at least a 30 second video of (so I can catch the cute little things my son does and email them to his dad). Does the sony do this?
We love our Olympus Stylus 720 SW, shock proof, water proof, ultra compact so it fits perfect in a jersey pocket. 7.1 megapix. Great pics!
7 megapixels is a lot of overkill for a pocket camera. It's like paying extra $$$ for a car with a top speed of 250mph instead of 200mph... not much point to it.
mtbdarby, Sony does video, but so do a lot of cameras. With video capabilities, its better to invest in memory. A 4GB card can hold alot of memories! (pun intended)
That's what I needed (wanted) to hear. I'll get the Canon. As far as the video is concerned, both of these cameras I described have it as well as my 5mp Kodak camera. While it doesn't replace a real digital camera, they were great for email, or just ones I wanted to keep on a computer. During all of my research, I was surprised to find that it's actually hard to find one that DOESN'T have the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluetree
Thanks everyone for the help!
If you are looking for handy DC to shoot while riding, why not try the Canon i zoom ? its 5MP, fits nicely (size of the mobile or even smaller !) and works wonders when spinning.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdarby
I was dragged kicking and screaming to digital, digging my heels in the dirt all the way there.
I like film, I hate pixels, I like the way film responds (it's fast and cheap) it's easy to time and take action shots...I....like...film I like the colors better. :mad:
But when my little point and shoot got covered in Gu the shop said it would be cheaper to get a new camera and I got....
Vivitar Vivicam 3.2 w 4x digital zoom.
Works on standard bateries but man oh man it eats bateries for lunch. I need to get a recharger for the recycled batteries so I do the enviornmentaly correct thing.
It's teeny tiny, slips in a rear jersey pocket....
I still like film
I can't speak for the differences in mp - but having dropped my new Canon in a parking lot :rolleyes: I can say the case is very sturdy. A few cosmetic scratches - it still works perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by uforgot
The macro function works well too
Well, to get back to this thread, I see you like the Canon too. I still love my Canon Elph 600. Had it for about a month now and I take it everywhere. That nice little case I got to hang it on my handlebars when riding is working out great. It fits nicely in a jacket pocket too. Such easy access and good protection. One of my friends at the hospital bought a Canon 600 after messing with mine. She brought in her vacation pics this week... just gorgeous. Then another friend got one this past w/e after using mine. Loves it. Every shot is a good one. No jitters. Quick on the trigger for a digital PAS. Still nice looking when blown up to 8x10. I got a HP printer to go with it a few days ago, a Photosmart A516. Does 4x6 prints. If you're looking for a separate printer to go with your camera, don't get the Canon printer. May be slightly cheaper in the beginning, but ink, paper, etc... costs much more than the HP and the HP's print much nicer.
Like Trek, I still LOVE film tho. I have my Canon Eos Rebel Ti for more serious shooting. And then there's my older, trusty Chinon CP-9AF that I'll never part with. (I miss Chinons) I fixed her myself when she took a nose dive at Disney World a few years back. Reset lenses, rebuilt the shutter, replaced the battery compartment hinges, door and connections... all from a donor camera. She may have a few more miles on her and be a bit slower than the new models, but she's still my favorite. With age comes a smooth grace. :cool:
Good luck with your Canon. I think you'll love it.
X.
Love the daisy and the sturdiness of the case on the canon is what I wanted to hear. That Sony scared me after a lot of reviews I read, but the Canon had nothing but owners who loved it. Here too! If I want a print I send it to Ofoto. Love the look of their prints! (And I usually have them in hand within 2 days.)
It was really great having a place where I can get instant feedback on these cams. I was reading reviews for days and days, and my specific questions were answered on TE! Thanks everyone!:D
I also went digital after discovering on a summer holiday that the money I spent in 3 weeks developing pics was enough to buy a digital. :eek: Although I do still love film (Is this genetic, or were we just socialized the same, Trek420?), there are many advantages to digital:
- small and lightweight encourages habits that keep the camera available whenever you wish it were there ("oh, it IS here, right in my pocket!")
- snap away and ditch the glitches
- easy to download and share electronically
- you can still print, even at home with a good color printer, or online or at a phot shop.
- camera quality is getting good, what with pixels getting cheaper by the million.
But there are also disadvantages:
- shutter delay
- small and light can also mean unstable, easily jolted when you press the button, or breathe, or blink.
- small and light can also mean plastic, i.e. flimsy.
- small and light can also mean so teensy that your own fingers get in the way, or you can't read the icons, or ...
- 3x optical zoom doesn't even get you to 50mm, and digital zoom costs you in pixel density
So I compromised. I went for a medium-sized one that has a good hand-fitting grip and a leeetle bit of heft for a steady hold. It does not fit in a pocket, but is still lightweight and fits easily alongside other gear in my backpack or camelbak. It has 10x optical zoom. I wanted the 4mp version, but it was unavailable at the time, so I settled for 3.2mp. With 10x zoom I'm still getting sharp close-up pictures, even at some distance. (Trek420 keeps saying "lens envy, lens envy" when I show her snaps I've taken, say of ground squirrels we've hiked by, or a closeup of a wildflower, or a shorebird 100 yards off -- not to mention video of the Taiko drummers on Hiroshima day!) I've been pretty happy with it for 3 years now, but ...
I now take so many pics that I need urgently to get my image files in order and set up on my web page!
Also, bits are breaking off the flimsy case, so far both tips of the zoom trigger are gone.
Meanwhile, prices are going down and pixels are going up, so maybe in another year or so I'll replace this one (a Minolta Z1) with even more zoom and pixels, and maybe even an image stabilizer function. :p
I went to a regular camera store and they recommended CANON hands down. Said it is most reliable, sturdy, takes AA batts, etc. I got the Powershot A640 (10 megapixels) and it isn't as small as most, but I won't lose it either! :D I took this picture just now in almost total darkness.
Attachment 2137
I have a Canon PowerShot S70. I had the PowerShot S45 for years - loved it! When I upgraded to the S70, I gave the S45 to my brother. It's now his primary camera, and still taking fantastic pictures, despite the dented case :o
When I went looking for a camera, I was seriously torn between something that I could put in a pocket and an SLR. I settled on the S45 because it took gorgeous pictures - still does! - has a good set of controls, and is relatively small. I got the S70 because I loved the S45 so much.
Size-wise, it's in the middle. Fits comfortably in a jacket pocket, and can go in a pants pocket if it doesn't have to share. It's a little on the heavy side, so I usually carry it in whatever bag I have with me - purse, pannier, backpack, whatever. For outdoor photo quality, it's fabulous. Indoors, it's adequate. And special bonus: there is an underwater housing available that gives you access to 100% of the controls.
It uses a proprietary battery, but it holds a charge admirably. I'll go months without charging it, then pull it out and take dozens of flash pictures. If we're touring somewhere with lots of photo moments - like a trip to Korea I did last year - I need to recharge the battery every evening, or I'll be wishing I had by lunch the next day.
Most of my best photos are incidental - if I didn't just carry a camera everywhere, I'd never have them. But at the same time, I wanted to be able to blow up the photos to a size that's worth framing. (What can I say? I'm proud of my photos ;)) So, I really don't think 7 megapixels is overkill for a pocket camera - it depends on the quality of the camera (optics and so on), the photographer's skill, and intended use of the photos.
Every camera has trade-offs. Everyone has their own ideal point on the spectrum. I'm just thrilled there's such a complete spectrum, these days :D