Can you recommend a good Point&Shoot camera?

[Dug-says-HI-THERE!]

I am looking to upgrade my existing Kodak EasyShare C300 digital camera for our trip next summer, so I'm totally overwhelmed with what I should be looking at. What I REALLY want is a P&S that takes pictures like a DSLR camera.

I'm not sure about zoom ratios or anything.....can anyone recommend a camera (or even a brand) to look at?



Your help is MOST appreciated!!

 

[ukcatfan]

I am looking to upgrade my existing Kodak EasyShare C300 digital camera for our trip next summer, so I'm totally overwhelmed with what I should be looking at. What I REALLY want is a P&S that takes pictures like a DSLR camera.

I'm not sure about zoom ratios or anything.....can anyone recommend a camera (or even a brand) to look at?



Your help is MOST appreciated!!

If you mean that it handles in a similar manner, then look for something with manual controls over aperture, shutter, ISO, etc. If you want one that gives you the quality of a DSLR in all situations... that does not exist.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Do you have a budget in mind for the purchase?

 

[Dug-says-HI-THERE!]

If you mean that it handles in a similar manner, then look for something with manual controls over aperture, shutter, ISO, etc. If you want one that gives you the quality of a DSLR in all situations... that does not exist.

It doesn't need to handle like a manual camera...that's too much for me. I just want the pictures to have a decent look to them---better than my Kodak

Do you have a budget in mind for the purchase?

I'm thinking about $250-$300....although my husband would probably say $200....so lets say $250.00 (and split the difference)

 

[VVFF]

It doesn't need to handle like a manual camera...that's too much for me. I just want the pictures to have a decent look to them---better than my Kodak



I'm thinking about $250-$300....although my husband would probably say $200....so lets say $250.00 (and split the difference)

What's lacking about your kodak pictures "look"?

 

[Dug-says-HI-THERE!]

My online photos are stored on Flickr, which apparently doesn't work on the DIS,cause it get this:

I'm inept when it comes to cameras.

I just think that my kodak doesn't take good close up photos....the zoom is almost non--existent....it's grainy and blurry.

 

[Uncle Greg]

I think you're linking the wrong flickr tag.

Let me try for ya:

There we go.

When you link from Flickr you dont want to just copy and paste the webpage link. Click on "all sizes" of the photo you want to post, then choose "large". Near the bottom will be a URL you can copy and host up here by using the yellow icon with a mountain in it. Be sure to remove the extra "http://"

 

[ukcatfan]

My online photos are stored on Flickr, which apparently doesn't work on the DIS,cause it get this:

I'm inept when it comes to cameras.

I just think that my kodak doesn't take good close up photos....the zoom is almost non--existent....it's grainy and blurry.

Your link is not complete. I see it when I quote. It looks like a link to a folder instead of an individual image. "IMG]http://www.flickr.com/photos/23060354@N05/4777644333/[/IMG"

Getting a camera with more zoom is not a problem. Getting it to give you shots that are less grainy and having less blur will mean you learning a little more about exposure. The camera is doing the best it knows how to do and you will need to give it directions if you want it to improve. With more zoom, your problem is likely going to get worse not better. That said, there are probably cameras that have better low light abilities than your current model, but you are going to be disappointed in it if you do not learn more.

 

[Dug-says-HI-THERE!]

I think you're linking the wrong flickr tag.

When you link from Flickr you dont want to just copy and paste the webpage link. Click on "all sizes" of the photo you want to post, then choose "large". Near the bottom will be a URL you can copy and host up here by using the yellow icon with a mountain in it. Be sure to remove the extra "http://"

Thanks, I see what you mean

Getting a camera with more zoom is not a problem. Getting it to give you shots that are less grainy and having less blur will mean you learning a little more about exposure. The camera is doing the best it knows how to do and you will need to give it directions if you want it to improve. With more zoom, your problem is likely going to get worse not better. That said, there are probably cameras that have better low light abilities than your current model, but you are going to be disappointed in it if you do not learn more.

Well, this is a zoomed image from my old HP camera...as you can see the image is much sharper....I loved that old camera....it looked like a traditional 35mm (with the large lense and shutter), but was a regular point & shoot.

and here's just a regular photo (no zoom) with the HP

 

[Frantasmic]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/

Here is a review of some good point and shoots.

 

[Mosca]

Really, it's almost impossible to NOT get a decent point and shoot camera these days. Higher budget gets you more features, not necessarily a better sensor or lens.

If you want one that "takes pictures like a DSLR"... if they existed, DSLRs would not. The closest you would get are the micro 4/3 cameras from Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony. But they cost about the same as the entry level DSLRs, and you trade some image quality for smaller size and portability. The cheapest point and shoot with DSLR image quality is probably this:

$2700, no zoom lens. And anyhow, it's not really a point and shoot.

If you are only interested in truly pointing and shooting from auto mode, without making adjustments to exposure, white balance, ISO, etc, just get the camera that fits your budget, is easy to carry and that has instructions that are easy to understand. It will take very good photos that you will be very happy with.

 

[photo_chick]

There are some great point and shoots out there but the images you get are generally only as good as the photographer.

Every camera has noise. It's part of digital photography just like grain was with film. Your current camera shows more than your old one most likely becasue you have a greater ISO range. Add that to more pixels and you get more noise.

Which camera really is a matter of personal taste.. in your price range I'd look at the Fuji S2500 myself. Maybe it will fit what you need, maybe not.

 

[zackiedawg]

In general, I'd say the travel zoom type cameras mentioned above might be a good category to look at - smallish and portable, but with big zoom ranges for flexibility, and most would have decent image quality for nice prints or slideshows.

If you want something with a bit more of a grip and chunky design, look at the superzoom cameras like the Canon SX20, Nikon P100, Sony HX1, Panasonic FZ35, Fuji HS10, etc. Those have even bigger lens ranges, and are fatter and chunkier to hold onto.

I'm afraid the other piece of advice is to learn more about photography in general, which will greatly improve your photos. Whether you are looking at photos online from a DSLR or from a P&S, when you see a really great photo that makes you say 'WOW!', it isn't the camera that did it...it was the photographer. A great photographer could take your Kodak and probably churn out a very nice photo, and a terrible photographer could grab a professional DSLR with a $20,000 lens out of the hands of a National Geographic photographer, and take a horrible photo. Trust me, the brand name and model number of the camera are not the thing to judge when looking at photos. Not all cameras are alike and some are better than others - but it comes down to getting the features you want, the lens range you want, the body size and design you want, and fitting into the budget you want. Brand name means nothing towards getting a good photo, and doesn't guarantee a good camera - all the major brands make cheapo cameras and really good ones, and everything in between!

 

[Dug-says-HI-THERE!]

WOW, due I feel clueless now about pictures. If money were no object, I would probably invest in a decent DSLR and take a photography course to learn how to use it properly. BUT, what I need, is more in line with the Travel Zoom models that have been mentioned.

Is there really no differece between brands??

 

[Mosca]

There are differences; the question is, are they important for what you are doing? If not, (and it sounds like they aren't), you should get the one that seems to be easiest to use, that is the most convenient size and shape for you, that is easiest to hook up to the computer and printer and transfer images.

I've seen some spectacular photos from inexpensive point and shoot cameras. I have many thousands (and thousands) of dollars invested in camera equipment, and I have boundless respect for the quality of low end digital. There really is a camera out there for everyone.

(And I am also proof that expensive gear is no substitute for talent, but that is a discussion for a different thread.)

 

[zackiedawg]

Exactly..there are differences, but they rarely would be responsible for 'good' or 'bad' photos, just different features and styles of shooting, different viewing methods, slightly different speeds. Those things contribute, but the photographer is still the puppetmaster! Your average Joe or Jill who picks up a camera to snap a shot can do so pretty well the same with any of the top brands - I'll generally stick those (American market players) to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji...and a few smaller players that are still pretty reliable, Casio and Samsung. Kodak still makes a few too - they're not what they once were, but the higher end cameras can still take a good, reliable snapshot.

Now, once you become a GOOD photographer, differences in gear can help you do better, shoot faster, perform in lower light, etc. That all comes once you learn more about photography and get into more advanced manual controls of a camera.