Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Anyone have any recommendations for a low end (cheapish) digital camera that takes quick pictures?
Useless information/rant follows if you're bored (all I have is free time at the moment):
My mom has one that is ready to snap photos just a few seconds after it's turned on, but requires nearly 15 seconds to take another. I borrowed that one because my wife's camera takes 10-15 seconds to power up, and also takes too long in between photos (I have gone through different modes and settings). Then, my camcorder takes decent photos as quickly as you can take them, but there is no flash and it's something I don't want to always carry with me.
I never realized how slow they were until I tried taking spur-of-the-moment pictures of my baby ("I formed babby").
I hate this need for splash screen startups, or automatic picture review after one is taken (I also don't like how people, especially my wife, feel they need to review every single photo immediately after. You were just there!), and know I don't need a 30 megapixel camera with three displays and YouTube, Facebook, or other built-in fad support.
@madog: They may not literally take 10-15 seconds, but when you're trying to take pictures of a babys smile or something, 7 seconds can feel like an eternity; and the moment may be gone by then.
I also don't know anything about cameras so I don't know if they specifically rate that or have categories for a digital camera that works as fast as one from 15 years ago that took pics as fast as you could wind the film.
Any information about it would be greatly appreciated!
@madog: i bought the kodak easy share m1033 for like 130 bucks if not less.
really good for snapshots and keeping in your pocket. i like it. i keep it in my car. has a good battery life. if i need it i got a usb car adapter so it will charge on the drive to the event. it holds up pretty good. takes good photos.
@madog: oh! and it does start up fairly quickly around 3 seconds. and if you are taking regular snapshots, no long exposure and all that bull. its pretty instant.
@madog: There are a couple options but specifically I'd look at the Canon SD 1200 IS. It's got the digic IV processor, a fast lens, and it runs around $150 right now. Not too fancy in the spec department (3x zoom range, 10mp, SD movie ability) but it's a solid little camera.
@Gene @LatimerAnaxibia @che-che @FigNinja: Thanks for the info guys! I appreciate it. I'll definitely check out that site/forum and that Canon/Kodak. And yes, while $30 for one would be awesome, I'd expect to pay around $150 for a decent one these days.
With all of the different models out there with bonus novelty features and smile recognition and volume knobs that go to 11, it can be confusing to find a decent, simple camera that does what it's supposed to well.
(tried to promote all replies in case this multi-reply doesn't work as I'd imagine it to. Hopefully others find this useful too!)
@madog: Canon A1100. On sale for $129 if you look around. Amazing photos. I bought 10 for a photo class I teach to school kids and I've been blown away by the results.
These descriptions sound like something Rod Roddy would say while running down the items on the Showcase Showdown..."all this and more could be yours on the Price Is Right!"
@John_001: same... remember his insane outfits? and how red in the face he use to get? Lets hope he's doing tons of blow off strippers asses in heaven... thats what he deserves
The only Sanyo batteries I've owned are Eneloops and they've been pretty sweet. They came with a kit of adapters that can turn AA's into other size batteries.
When I worked at Circuit City in college (1999), we were given a statistic that the average camcorder user uses their camcorder for 12 hours a year. Remember that when you consider dropping $800 on a camcorder.
I highly disagree with what's concluded in this article.
The Flip (and Kodak Z-series) cameras are the worst digirecorders one could buy. Want good portable P&S video? Get the Canon SX200 IS digicam that records at 720/30p. Not only you will get exposure compensation AND locking for $300, but you get enough color and other settings to even emulate the movie look! And all that at high h.264 bitrate: 24 mbps! Beats the completely automatic, highly compressed Flip/Kodaks any day.
As for the high-end camcorder, I don't agree with going with the Panasonic one. The best camcorder in that range is the Canon HF-S10/S100. It has more detail than the TM-300, and more manual controls and ports -- at the same price.
@Eugenia: the sx200 is nice, but it costs twice as much. Yes, the money may buy you oodles of features / better optics, and is probably a much better value... but "budget" is not the word I would use at that price point, speaking as a broke-ass graphic designer.
@Eugenia: Seconded. I have the Powershot 780IS and it's a wicked good HD video recorder. It's only $199.
The focusing lens is what makes it totally outclass the flipcam-style recorders. It's also *tiny!*Bonus: Canon makes a really solid underwater case that'll let you shoot down to something like 150 feet with full controls available.
@Eugenia: I was strongly considering the HF-S100 but Camcorderinfo compares it with the TM-300 on a number of fronts and makes a compelling case for the Panasonic, concluding:
"TM300 has the edge in performance, clearly beating out the HF S100 in low light, noise, stabilization, and still performance; the Canon has only a slight edge in bright light color, video sharpness, and motion"
I'm not sure what port the Canon has that the Panasonic doesn't - is it an important one?
@Eugenia: I agree with the heart of your argument, that a more comprehensive review of certain cameras at certain price levels should have been done.
It's a very easy argument that currently Cannon makes some of the leading sensors on the market and another easy argument that everyone looking to do semi-pro filming (ie 1300$ and up) should stay far away from Panasonic. I say redo this article as a weeklong special with that level of research.
My vote is still on the Kodak Zi8. Currently priced at $150 for a 1080p pocket camcorder, and it's got all the cool little things that makes us gadget people all giddy.
If you're looking at spending $1300 on a consumer video camera, I really have to recommend taking a look at the previous generation of pro (or cheap documentary) cameras, specifically the Panasonic Ag-DVX100B. Yes, it's only SD, but it's really good SD (using 3CCD instead of CMOS for the sensor). And sound quality is terrific - with a pair of XLR inputs, you can't compete on sound with any of these consumer models, and if you've ever shot video only to find the audio was terrible, you know how important sound is to good video. Also worth mentioning is the real 24P mode. Instant dramatic effect.
It's since been replaced by the $5K AGX200, which shoots in HD, but a quick search on ebay shows that they are out there (don't be fooled by the "buy it now" listings - they're priced too high and there's a reason they're still listed).
@Joe Stoner:
It's been replaced by the HVX-200, the HPX-170, and the HMC-150 actually....actually in many ways the HMC-150 is the actual successor. There is no AGX200 to my knowledge. The HMC-150 at $3500 is a freaking amazing camera...same body, etc, as the much more expensive HPX-170 but it lacks P2 recording which for most people isn't a big deal, p2 actually being a detriment for independent filmmakers on a budget. HMC-150 also has the best implementation of AVCHD in any camera ever.
That said, I also highly recommend the Panasonic Lumix GH1.
@TheCrudMan: Yeah, HVX-200 is what I meant. And we opted to get a 160GB firewire drive instead of using P2 cards since they're just too damn expensive.
@Joe Stoner: well, p2 cards prices droped, and from my distributor, they said the firestore doesn't work well and they aren't doing well since p2 cards prices dropped (We have 4 hvx200 cameras)
I picked up a 40" Sony Bravia S-series for $598, and I love it. There is a slight trail but hardly noticeable, you have to really try to look for it. I was surprised because this was suppose to be the chief complaint about the TV. It is offers great video and audio customization in the built in Menu system. The contrast is only 30,000:1 but after playing with settings is better then I had anticipated. This TV is bright, with the backlight cranked up you could watch this outside on a sunny day (no joke). The sound quality on this TV is without equal in its price range. I have an older model Sony amp and so I run all my audio into TV out into the Amp. (Another Sony bonus, tons of input ports). I probably could have spent an additional few hundred for a new 7.1 sound system, but like I said the quality now is already great. So Sony has its ups and downs, but if you are looking for a beautiful TV to pair with your PS3 and don't have an entire grand to slap down - the Bravia is a good bet.
I know HDTV's are flat and all, but they are all three dimensional, aren't they?
I still think this concept of everyone wanting to sit around watching TV with special glasses is ridiculous. I experienced a number of the 3D movies this summer in both formats and (for me) all of them were a more enjoyable experience without the glasses. I am not saying the extra dimension did not add an extra element, but they are uncomfortable to wear for an entire movie. The troublesome short versions of me ended up watching half the movie without the glasses because they were annoying for a couple of the movies. All of which is to say - I just have a tough time imagining an entire family sitting in front of a TV every night with 3D glasses on.
@TFXR: I think you're right. And it pisses me off. I would rather have manufactures invest in making quality TV''s with better picture quality and better lifespans than investing money in dumb gimmicks.
I'll tell a better quality, longer lasting TV over a 3D one any day.
In other news, analysts recently released a report estimating that up to half of all people who will buy Sony HDTVs in 2012 will overpay for their TVs and gain little value.
12/11/09
Useless information/rant follows if you're bored (all I have is free time at the moment):
My mom has one that is ready to snap photos just a few seconds after it's turned on, but requires nearly 15 seconds to take another. I borrowed that one because my wife's camera takes 10-15 seconds to power up, and also takes too long in between photos (I have gone through different modes and settings). Then, my camcorder takes decent photos as quickly as you can take them, but there is no flash and it's something I don't want to always carry with me.
I never realized how slow they were until I tried taking spur-of-the-moment pictures of my baby ("I formed babby").
I hate this need for splash screen startups, or automatic picture review after one is taken (I also don't like how people, especially my wife, feel they need to review every single photo immediately after. You were just there!), and know I don't need a 30 megapixel camera with three displays and YouTube, Facebook, or other built-in fad support.
12/11/09
I also don't know anything about cameras so I don't know if they specifically rate that or have categories for a digital camera that works as fast as one from 15 years ago that took pics as fast as you could wind the film.
Any information about it would be greatly appreciated!
12/11/09
[www.dpreview.com]
They often give list how long all those things take for a given camera. The forums are really helpful, too.
12/11/09
really good for snapshots and keeping in your pocket. i like it. i keep it in my car. has a good battery life. if i need it i got a usb car adapter so it will charge on the drive to the event. it holds up pretty good. takes good photos.
is that cheap enough.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/12/09
With all of the different models out there with bonus novelty features and smile recognition and volume knobs that go to 11, it can be confusing to find a decent, simple camera that does what it's supposed to well.
(tried to promote all replies in case this multi-reply doesn't work as I'd imagine it to. Hopefully others find this useful too!)
12/12/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/10/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
The Flip (and Kodak Z-series) cameras are the worst digirecorders one could buy. Want good portable P&S video? Get the Canon SX200 IS digicam that records at 720/30p. Not only you will get exposure compensation AND locking for $300, but you get enough color and other settings to even emulate the movie look! And all that at high h.264 bitrate: 24 mbps! Beats the completely automatic, highly compressed Flip/Kodaks any day.
As for the high-end camcorder, I don't agree with going with the Panasonic one. The best camcorder in that range is the Canon HF-S10/S100. It has more detail than the TM-300, and more manual controls and ports -- at the same price.
12/08/09
12/08/09
The focusing lens is what makes it totally outclass the flipcam-style recorders. It's also *tiny!*Bonus: Canon makes a really solid underwater case that'll let you shoot down to something like 150 feet with full controls available.
12/08/09
"TM300 has the edge in performance, clearly beating out the HF S100 in low light, noise, stabilization, and still performance; the Canon has only a slight edge in bright light color, video sharpness, and motion"
I'm not sure what port the Canon has that the Panasonic doesn't - is it an important one?
12/08/09
It's a very easy argument that currently Cannon makes some of the leading sensors on the market and another easy argument that everyone looking to do semi-pro filming (ie 1300$ and up) should stay far away from Panasonic. I say redo this article as a weeklong special with that level of research.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
It's since been replaced by the $5K AGX200, which shoots in HD, but a quick search on ebay shows that they are out there (don't be fooled by the "buy it now" listings - they're priced too high and there's a reason they're still listed).
12/08/09
It's been replaced by the HVX-200, the HPX-170, and the HMC-150 actually....actually in many ways the HMC-150 is the actual successor. There is no AGX200 to my knowledge. The HMC-150 at $3500 is a freaking amazing camera...same body, etc, as the much more expensive HPX-170 but it lacks P2 recording which for most people isn't a big deal, p2 actually being a detriment for independent filmmakers on a budget. HMC-150 also has the best implementation of AVCHD in any camera ever.
That said, I also highly recommend the Panasonic Lumix GH1.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/05/09
11/30/09
I still think this concept of everyone wanting to sit around watching TV with special glasses is ridiculous. I experienced a number of the 3D movies this summer in both formats and (for me) all of them were a more enjoyable experience without the glasses. I am not saying the extra dimension did not add an extra element, but they are uncomfortable to wear for an entire movie. The troublesome short versions of me ended up watching half the movie without the glasses because they were annoying for a couple of the movies. All of which is to say - I just have a tough time imagining an entire family sitting in front of a TV every night with 3D glasses on.
11/30/09
11/30/09
This is a dumb gimmick. Until someone does it correctly, and I have yet to see a company even come close, I won't be adopting this technology.
My eyes are fucked up enough.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
I'll tell a better quality, longer lasting TV over a 3D one any day.
11/30/09
11/30/09