Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

tavilach · Dec 18, 2004, 02:21 AM

I'm looking for a camera that I can carry with me everywhere...but that will give me decent quality photos. I'd use it to upload pictures to the web, but I might like the possibility of getting prints, too.

My current camera is great, even after four years. It's an Olympus D-490, and while it used to be top-of-the-line (to an extent...it cost me about $500), 2.1 megapixels isn't considered too great these days. Honestly, though, 1600x1200 is good enough for me, but this camera just isn't portable.

I was looking at the Canon ELPH cameras, but they don't seem that small.

My pocket is currently full as it is: I have my wallet, phone, and keys. I'm about to start using my iPod, which will probably get clipped to the outside of my pocket. I don't really know where'd I'd even put the smallest camera...

By the way, flash is also a necessity.

Any suggestions?

im_noahselby · Dec 18, 2004, 02:45 AM

-Canon Powershot SD10 (4MP)
-Canon Powershot SD20 (5MP)
-Canon Powershot SD200 (3.2MP)
-Canon Powershot SD300 (4MP)

-Nikon Coolpix 4200 (4MP)
-Nikon Coolpix 5200 (5MP)

-Sony CyberShot DSC-L1 (4MP)

These are about as small as you want to go before image quality begins to suffer. I can't comment on Sonys other ultra small cameras, although their new one looks pretty good and is much smaller than the S410!

Noah

Luca Rescigno · Dec 18, 2004, 02:54 AM

Ultra compact, slim cameras are becoming a lot more popular recently. Sony and Konica Minolta seem to have the most common models. Sony has the high-end DSC-T1, which is 5 megapixels and has a huge 2" LCD on the back. That one is around $500. The DSC-U40 is about half the price and also very slim and portable. Minolta has the DiMAGE X-series. I think the X31 is currently available for $200 or thereabouts, and it's a pretty standard 3.1 MP camera with a modest optical zoom and okay image quality. It just happens to be extremely thin.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Sony rapes you as far as the price of memory is concerned. All their cameras use Memory Sticks, which are about twice as expensive as more common formats like Compact Flash and SD. If you're not going to be taking too many pictures, then a 64 or 128 MB card is probably okay, and cheap even in memory stick format. But SD and CF cards are so cheap these days that you may as well buy a 256 MB as they're only barely more expensive than 128 MB cards.

subego · Dec 18, 2004, 02:57 AM

If you can survive without the optical zoom, the Canon SD10 is fantastic, and fantastically tiny.

My GF has one and it's great. I'd swap my Sony DSC-T1 in a second, even though the Sony has 3x optical zoom and an extra megapixel. The Canon beats it hands down in every situation except for bright daylight. Admittedly, one of the big complaints of the Sony is its anemic flash.

P.S. AFAIK, Canon has released the successor to the SD10, you you may be able to find the 10 for cheap(ish).

iMacfan · Dec 18, 2004, 05:08 AM

If you really want to go tiny, check the Pentax OptioS range and the Olympus mu mini.

jonzilla · Dec 18, 2004, 10:11 AM

and the Panasonic Fx-7 - its got a hugh screen (2.5 inches).

vasu · Dec 18, 2004, 10:16 AM

I'd get the Canon Powershot SD200. 3MP, 3x optical zoom, great image quality, a big 2" lcd on the back, quick startup and shot times, and only 0.8" thick! I think you can get it off amazon for $232.

Product page: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...;modelid=10595

Couple reviews: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...ew/index.shtml and http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD200/SD2A.HTM

It's as thin or thinner than the Optio's and the like, but will have better image quality, easier use, a better lcd screen and faster times.

The only 2 cameras that are thinner than this one are the Casio Exilim EX-S100 which is 0.66" thick, which isn't much thinner, and it's more expensive with not as good image quality. The height and width dimensions of the Casio are the same of a credit card though, with the Canon only slightly larger. There's also the Kyocera Finecam S4 which is about a year old and has a swivel lens and is about 0.6" thick, but has no lens cover and isn't that great otherwise either.

I'd really get that Canon, it's a hot little camera. Easily slips into a pocket, has a nice solid feel to it, works wonderfully, etc. I'm probably going to get one in a month.

-vasu

azdude · Dec 18, 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by vasu:
I'd get the Canon Powershot SD200. 3MP, 3x optical zoom, great image quality, a big 2" lcd on the back, quick startup and shot times, and only 0.8" thick! I think you can get it off amazon for $232.

Last year, I got the previous model of this camera, the SD110, for about that price. It's super. It's very small (perhaps not carry-everywhere SD10-type small), and has pretty good image quality.

Add to the mix that the new model is smaller than mine, has a much bigger LCD, etc... I'd recommend it, too!

widget : widget · Dec 18, 2004, 12:30 PM

In the summer I purchased a Canon IXUS i, which is tiny - no bigger than a cell phone.

I think the model that has replaced it is the IXUS i5 - and if you can go without an optical zoom, these cameras are decent enough.

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home...PageID=26009#2

tavilach · Dec 18, 2004, 02:53 PM

Well guys, I'm starting to fall madly in love with the Canon SD series!

If I'm not mistaken, the SD series is smaller than the S series (i.e. S410 vs. SD300), correct?

If that's the case, I think the SD series is the way to go, and I'm debating between an SD200 and an SD300.

3.2 megapixels is probably all I need, but I have a bad feeling that it'll be deemed obsolete in no time. I've had my Olympus camera for four years, and 2.1 megapixels used to be great, while now that's considered pretty lame. 3.2 might have the same fate...not to the mention the fact that it's not that much more than 2.1!

It seems that the SD300 also has better movie mode, and some other nice features.

What do you all think about these two?

azdude · Dec 18, 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by tavilach:
Well guys, I'm starting to fall madly in love with the Canon SD series!

If I'm not mistaken, the SD series is smaller than the S series (i.e. S410 vs. SD300), correct?

If that's the case, I think the SD series is the way to go, and I'm debating between an SD200 and an SD300.

3.2 megapixels is probably all I need, but I have a bad feeling that it'll be deemed obsolete in no time. I've had my Olympus camera for four years, and 2.1 megapixels used to be great, while now that's considered pretty lame. 3.2 might have the same fate...not to the mention the fact that it's not that much more than 2.1!

It seems that the SD300 also has better movie mode, and some other nice features.

What do you all think about these two?

Here we go again with "Tavilach Silliness."

Why care about whether it's "lame" or not?? Sure, there's room for discussion over which camera is the better buy, but making your criteria the "lameness" of a number is a bit silly -- the argument is nearly 100% based upon how much you need the extra resolution (for making large -- at this level of MP, you're darn near full page size -- prints).

(eh....... Who am I kidding... we're mostly gadget geeks here, and sure-- bragging rights play a role sometimes, but YOU need to make the decision whether or not the extra 0.8MP is worth $100 to you... not us).

Anywy... here are excellent SD200 and SD300 reviews from Steve's Digicams. According to them, the SD200 and SD300 are nearly identical -- SAME movie mode, same lens, zoom, image processor, etc.. They're nearly identical in size and weight.... So your only real decision point is your anticipated print size, and any ancillary personal concerns you may have (looks, "coolness" or whatever).

(I rewrote this post about 5 times in varying tones... this happened to be the nicest one

)

paully dub · Dec 18, 2004, 05:50 PM

Pentax Optio S

The one that fits in an altoids tin. Excellent little camera. I'd say the image quality is as good as my nikon coolpix 4500 (minus a bunch of features, the swivel and an extra megapixal). Good sharp pictures, actually way better than I had expected.

But it fits the bill: a 3 mpxl camera that you can take everywhere.

This and the Casio were the first two to come out in this size, and the Pentax beats the Casio, in my opinion as it has AV out. Nice to show people pix/vids on a TV.

Probably cheaper than the Canon, too. But the Canon seems nice. Check out B & H's site.

subego · Dec 18, 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by tavilach:
2.1 megapixels used to be great, while now that's considered pretty lame. 3.2 might have the same fate...not to the mention the fact that it's not that much more than 2.1!

I've found that generally, more MP lessens light sensitivity, or in traditional photo terms, has a lower ASA. The more sensitive the camera, the more versatile it's going to be.

All the MP in the world ain't worth a damn if you're getting dark, muddy looking crap.

Luca Rescigno · Dec 18, 2004, 08:17 PM

I think camera companies are boosting the megapixels not because everyone needs more, but because otherwise they can't justify charging a minimum of $200 for their cameras.

Yeah, a lot of people would love to spend closer to $100 than $200 for a digicam, but they don't want you to get them for that cheap. If I may make an analogy to computers, Apple doesn't sell a $599 eMac, even though many people would be fine with an 800 MHz or 1 GHz eMac for $599 rather than a 1.25 GHz one at $799.

I'm pretty sure my Canon PowerShot A60 takes better pictures than some of those miniature point-and-shoot cameras, even though mine is only 2 MP and many of the new ones are now 3-5 MP. I get full manual controls, a real tripod mount, plain AA batteries, and a real 3x optical zoom, and it only cost me about $120. Having the ability to change exposure time, ISO, and shutter delay could be the difference between a horrible shot and a great one.

But those are all features of a larger camera. I don't think you're ever going to find an Altoids-tin-sized camera with full manual controls.

Buckaroo · Dec 19, 2004, 02:22 AM

The Sony T1 or T3

macaddict0001 · Dec 19, 2004, 11:10 AM

Have you considered replacing your phone with a camera phone?

azdude · Dec 19, 2004, 12:50 PM

AbleShoppers has posted a very nice way to get (4MP) Canon SD300 with a 512MB SD card for $351. (The SD300's usual retail price alone is $400).

http://www.ableshoppers.com/#14121915

paully dub · Dec 19, 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
I'm pretty sure my Canon PowerShot A60 takes better pictures than some of those miniature point-and-shoot cameras, even though mine is only 2 MP and many of the new ones are now 3-5 MP. I get full manual controls, a real tripod mount, plain AA batteries, and a real 3x optical zoom, and it only cost me about $120. Having the ability to change exposure time, ISO, and shutter delay could be the difference between a horrible shot and a great one.

But those are all features of a larger camera. I don't think you're ever going to find an Altoids-tin-sized camera with full manual controls.

Knowing the basics about exposure, how a camera sensor functions are rather important (how to avoid backlighting, blur, undertanding depth of field, color temperature etc). My exposures come out great on my lil' pentax because I know what I'm doing, and I don't expect too much from the little guy. As a result I have a camera that I take everywhere, and have many, many more pictures with than with my larger, older cams. And you'd be surprised with the features that these little cameras DO have.

the 3 mega pixels does get you a nice A4 sized print, which I enjoy. More than that just ain't necessary. Otherwise if price and the batteries are an issue, I strongly recommend that A60, which I got for my mum. She loves it.

tavilach · Dec 19, 2004, 05:35 PM

Two questions:

A) Is the little Pentax considered to be of lower quality than the SD200/300?
B) Someone told me that because the SD200 has a smaller something-or-other crammed into the same body, it will be less likely to have purple fringing (I've seen some horrible SD300 purple fringing).

macaddict0001 · Dec 19, 2004, 07:34 PM

The nice thing about the sd10's is the choice of colours.

tavilach · Dec 19, 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
Have you considered replacing your phone with a camera phone?

I own a camera phone, but I want to take real pictures, rather than crappy little flashless pictures...

macaddict0001 · Dec 19, 2004, 10:53 PM

makes sense.

tavilach · Dec 19, 2004, 10:54 PM

Furthermore, how do the Sony DSC-T1's compare to the SD200/300's?

mhuie · Dec 21, 2004, 08:16 AM

The nice thing about the sony-T1 is that you simple slide the cover down and its on within a second, and you can take your picture. I've owned many digital cameras, and IMHO, none are as convenient and as quick. Plus the great LCD screen and its thin enough to put in your pocket.

I do like the canons but they're a little too thick to put in your pocket.

I had the altoid bin size pentax optio-s and I thought it took horrible images.

im_noahselby · Dec 21, 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by tavilach:
Furthermore, how do the Sony DSC-T1's compare to the SD200/300's?

If a small portable camera with comparable image quality to the SD lineup is important to you, I'd consider the L1. From what I've read, it's a pretty sweet little camera and for the results, the L1 represents the better value of the two digicams. The L1 is about the size of a snickers bar, has a 4MP sensor, and 3X optical zoom. Check out some reviews of it if you have the time.

L1 = $299
T1 = $499

Noah

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 21, 2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by tavilach:

3.2 megapixels is probably all I need, but I have a bad feeling that it'll be deemed obsolete in no time. I've had my Olympus camera for four years, and 2.1 megapixels used to be great, while now that's considered pretty lame. 3.2 might have the same fate...not to the mention the fact that it's not that much more than 2.1!

[BEGIN RANT]
I really don't understand comments like these when it comes to digital cameras and this isn't directed at you personally - I hear this everywhere.

If the 2.1 MP was good for you back then, what's the difference now? Because there are 6 MP cameras out there? Who cares? What most people don't realize is that anything over 2 MP is pretty much overkill for the typical home user. A 2 MP will get you high quality pictures when printed on 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 paper and is more than sufficient for emailing photos and posting on the web. Just because it may be considered "lame" does not mean it is not sufficient for the typical home user.

Go here for a good review of MP and print sizes:

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/dig...ixelsprint.htm

As you can see, a 2 MP camera is perfectly sufficient for printing out 4 x 6 and 5 x 7 prints and gives acceptable 8 x 10s.

IMO, this more is better in digital cameras MPs is your typical "my d*** is bigger than yours."

Ask yourself this: Is the photo quality poor with your 2.1 MP camera? Probably not. Do the prints not look good? I bet they look fine.

I would love a new G5 iMac. However, my 800 MHz 17" iMac DOES WHAT I NEED IT TO DO. Same applies to my digital cameras (Canon S400 and Digital Rebel). S400 is used for everyday photos and Digital Rebel for quality photos I want to print out at 11 x 14 or more. When they come out with a 20 MP camera it won't make my cameras ANY less suitable for my needs (i.e. my print quality won't go down just because there is a camera out there with more MPs)

[END RANT]

iREZ · Dec 21, 2004, 11:14 AM

Your quality wont go down thats true, but if your using a camera for work or school then your colleagues quality will go up and your quality will still be the same but suffer in comparison. I bought an S500 just the other day so that I could use it for my graphic courses at school along with messing around with my buddies or at special events. If I didn't need it for school I would totally go the SD200 route as it is a perfect camera for the not so big print needs. With the S500 I get loads of manual controls so I'm thrilled silly with this camera. Go with an elph or sony for quality and portability.

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 21, 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by iREZ:
Your quality wont go down thats true, but if your using a camera for work or school then your colleagues quality will go up and your quality will still be the same but suffer in comparison. I bought an S500 just the other day so that I could use it for my graphic courses at school along with messing around with my buddies or at special events. If I didn't need it for school I would totally go the SD200 route as it is a perfect camera for the not so big print needs. With the S500 I get loads of manual controls so I'm thrilled silly with this camera. Go with an elph or sony for quality and portability.

Good point. You being in graphics, you are going to want a better camera - that makes sense. My point was that he wants a portable camera mainly for uploading pics on the web and some printing (I assume 4 x 6). His biggest criteria seems to be portability. My feeling is that a 2-3 MP camera that is ultra portable will be MORE than sufficient for his needs. In that case, he doesn't need a 5 MP camera. I got the impression from his posts that he is worried that his camera (2-3 MP) is or will be outdated. I say it doesn't matter if it does what you need it to do. BTW, I have the S400 and love it - great little camera and portable enough for me.

Also, if your colleagues are still printing at the same size and resolution with a higher MP cameras as they were with a "lesser" camera than it won't make a notable difference in print quality.

iREZ · Dec 21, 2004, 04:22 PM

I concur

, I could be such a kiss ass sometimes. Just stop the Tavilach nonesense that we've all grown to love and get yourself a 2-3mp digi and get on with your life.

im_noahselby · Dec 25, 2004, 12:52 AM

tavilach,

Let us know what camera you decide on. I'm hoping to grab a portable camera myself during the Boxing Day madness that is soon to ensue.

Noah

crazeazn · Dec 25, 2004, 02:13 AM

i think canon has excellent p&s cams

i'm using a S50 and i love it.

Lancer409 · Dec 25, 2004, 05:54 AM

</~~~ Has an SD200

legacyb4 · Feb 24, 2005, 04:00 PM

Was reading some comments on the S410 and came across this quote... funny how things change, eh?

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Apple doesn't sell a $599 eMac, even though many people would be fine with an 800 MHz or 1 GHz eMac for $599 rather than a 1.25 GHz one at $799.

Goldfinger · May 12, 2005, 07:18 AM

I just wish that someone made a camera as small as the Canon Ixus cameras but with bloody manual exposure controls. I don't want a full auto camera since those things never do what I want. I want a small digital camera to take with me on parties and things like that, locations where taking my F5 is a bit too much.
But untill then I'm out of luck.

Randman · May 12, 2005, 07:41 AM

Another vote for the Canon. I have the 3.2 iXus and it's small, has great battery life and takes very good photos. Am thinking of upgrading to the 5 or 7.1 model soon.

action · May 12, 2005, 09:05 AM

hi folks,

just bought my wife a canon sd500. in hindsight i would have bought the sd400. as stated before once you get above 2mp, it's more then enough for home printing.

you do however upgrade cameras not just to upgrade megapixels but to upgrade everything else, ie shutterlag, camera speed, more manual options, better color and dynamic range due to improved ccd chip etc...

those things will make your pictures better then more megapixels. so there is a reason to upgrade then just increasing megapixels. eventhough im a professional photographer, 98% of our home pictures are taken by my wife and our digital elphs. for this reason i upgraded the elph from our previous s100. the sd500 takes better pictures because it has a better sensor and better camera responsiveness. increased mp's were a little bonus if you can even call it that.

chung lee

www.chunglee.com

ps. my vote is for the canon sd400 for price and performance.

SimeyTheLimey · May 12, 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I just wish that someone made a camera as small as the Canon Ixus cameras but with bloody manual exposure controls. I don't want a full auto camera since those things never do what I want. I want a small digital camera to take with me on parties and things like that, locations where taking my F5 is a bit too much.
But untill then I'm out of luck.

Well, there is always the Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder.

Too bad it is $3000.

I guess I will just have to stick to my Leicas.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 12, 2005, 10:59 AM

Pff all these sugestions are GIANTS!

I bought this camera yesturday. 5.1 megapixels and actually less long and thick than my damn Sony Erricson T637 phone:

Stunning pics and LCD.

Randman · May 12, 2005, 11:40 AM

Memory sticks suck.

crazeazn · May 12, 2005, 12:18 PM

stick with canon p&s digital cameras.the lenses on the canon's are second to none. nikon being on par. the ease of use and the price point not being too terribly different from its competitors make it an excellent choice.

i am currently using a 2 year old canon powershot S50 and i still love it b/c it churns out awesome pictures and gives me full manual mode. one day i will make the plunge and buy that 20D that ive been wanting...

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 12, 2005, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

Memory sticks suck.

Of course they do.

angelmb · May 12, 2005, 03:01 PM

This Casio Exilim Card is worth a look. World's smallest optical zoom digital camera with 3.2 million pixels of resolution and 2.8X optical zoom lens.

sworthy · May 12, 2005, 05:24 PM

Of course megapixels matter (if you crop)! With prints and/or iPhoto books, I love to be able to crop a large area of a photo and still be able to make a large print, like say a whole page in an iPhoto book. Granted, for many shots an uncropped print is fine, but the flexibility of more megpaixels is nice.

SSharon · May 12, 2005, 11:30 PM

I know a few people with the canon sd200/300/400 and they have all been happy with them. I am looking for a good price for one of these models, but I keep being drawn to the kyocera sl400r. Does anyone here have any experience with one? I used an older kyocera sl300r but not for long enough to convince me to buy it right away. Link here http://www.dcviews.com/_kyocera/sl4c.htm

Lancer409 · May 13, 2005, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by mhuie

The nice thing about the sony-T1 is that you simple slide the cover down and its on within a second, and you can take your picture. I've owned many digital cameras, and IMHO, none are as convenient and as quick. Plus the great LCD screen and its thin enough to put in your pocket.

I do like the canons but they're a little too thick to put in your pocket.

I had the altoid bin size pentax optio-s and I thought it took horrible images.

t1 may have a neat slide, but i'd rather have the usual on button instead of a slide cover that acts as a power button. the slide is awkward to use with one hand, and after a while, it'll leave a nasty scuff mark on the face of the t1 (check bestbuy or fry's to see how they look after some wear and tear

)

it has a great lcd but ... while it's thin enough to put into your pocket, ANY camera with a 2.5lcd screen NEEDS to be put into a case. you guys have any idea how easy it is to destroy a sony t1 screen?!? they are FRAGILE!

Lancer409 · May 13, 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by azdude

Here we go again with "Tavilach Silliness."

Why care about whether it's "lame" or not?? Sure, there's room for discussion over which camera is the better buy, but making your criteria the "lameness" of a number is a bit silly -- the argument is nearly 100% based upon how much you need the extra resolution (for making large -- at this level of MP, you're darn near full page size -- prints).

(eh....... Who am I kidding... we're mostly gadget geeks here, and sure-- bragging rights play a role sometimes, but YOU need to make the decision whether or not the extra 0.8MP is worth $100 to you... not us).

Anywy... here are excellent SD200 and SD300 reviews from Steve's Digicams. According to them, the SD200 and SD300 are nearly identical -- SAME movie mode, same lens, zoom, image processor, etc.. They're nearly identical in size and weight.... So your only real decision point is your anticipated print size, and any ancillary personal concerns you may have (looks, "coolness" or whatever).

(I rewrote this post about 5 times in varying tones... this happened to be the nicest one

)

yeah .. outdated? lame?

pff. i have the sd200. i like the styling more, its damn tiny, and it's fast (had a older nikon coolpix 3700 and the sd200 is way faster).

i dont care if it's 10 years from now, i'll still never need any more than a 3.2mp camera. i will never print anything larger than 8x10 so i wont need 4/5/7mp.

if you have a 7mp camera, and you take images at FULL resolution, you'd need a HUGE memory card to hold a decent ammount of shots. if you take 'em at lower resolution 1024x768 or 1600x1200, you'd be underusing the mp potential of your camera's. in other words, you'd be taking shots you could be making with a 3mp camera!

MP doesnt indicate better picture quality, just how big of a picture you can take.

anyways ..

good luck with your choice. whatever you go for. lots of good camera's coming down the pike too .. so if you dont need it now, wait up on it.

btw the sd200 is going for about 200 bucks now.

Goldfinger · May 13, 2005, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Well, there is always the Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder.

image snip

Too bad it is $3000.

I guess I will just have to stick to my Leicas.

Hehe, yeah I wish

.

I would really like somthing I can cary in my pocket, that means 150 grams or less and ideally it would have the possibility to set aperture. That's all I need, aperture priority. Ah well. Maybe I'm better off with a Minox

crazeazn · May 13, 2005, 10:08 PM

just get a canon elph

as2 · May 15, 2005, 03:49 AM

I have a Canon SD20 I picked up while in Miami in Jan.

The reason I went for the SD20 was because of it's size. It doesn't have any optical zoom, but it's 5MP, and for the type of photo's I take, I hardly use zoom anyway.

I carry it round in the car, or my bag during the day, and my pocket if I'm out with friends at night. It's small enough that it's no bother, and the quality of the photo's means you can crop them down later and still be large enough for you to print out.

Here are some examples of different types of shot's I've taken with it.

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3

NB - They are full size images so quite large.