I am in the market for a new digital camera in the 300 - 400 dollar range. I have't looked at this market in quite sometime, but I am pretty sure I want a 7MP. Anyone have any suggestions?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Need New Digital Camera
- Thread starter Ikstej24
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One great camera is the canon powershot SI I2 (I think) it's is only 5 mp but it's a very good cmaer I'll link the review
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...104-8419726-9287903?n=507846&s=photo&v=glance
it's like the best camera ever, I don't think you'll really need 7 mp only if your doing snigifent cropping! ut knocia minolta has an awesome 12x zoom 6 mp, look for it
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...104-8419726-9287903?n=507846&s=photo&v=glance
it's like the best camera ever, I don't think you'll really need 7 mp only if your doing snigifent cropping! ut knocia minolta has an awesome 12x zoom 6 mp, look for it
My opinion ( for what its worth) 
5 meg pixel is plenty. Unless you're panning on blowing pictures up and/or cropping. Post digital zoom
- battery life is important. My Panasonic Lumix lasts over 200 pictures.
- next is the trade off. Big chunk of glass (big lens) gives better pictures.
But a small compact camera means you'll carry it around more.
5 meg pixel is plenty. Unless you're panning on blowing pictures up and/or cropping. Post digital zoom
- battery life is important. My Panasonic Lumix lasts over 200 pictures.
- next is the trade off. Big chunk of glass (big lens) gives better pictures.
But a small compact camera means you'll carry it around more.
It should be fast (i.e. no delay on pressing the shutter button) and produce good photos at that price with decent resolution and a minimum of noise. Sony's DSC-P200 is one that comes to mind. The seven MP is probably more than most people need but the camera is so fast, and it handles so well, and it is so compact.
Canon, Canon or Canon. I have had a Canon Digital and a Canon 35mm and a 5MP Sony WS1 and after 50+ rolls with the Canon Rebel 35mm and well over 5000 pictures with the Canon 2MP A40, the Sony falls short in every single category except for size which in my opinion is not important as the poster above me said b/c the pictures it takes are so bad I have stopped even taking it out anyway. Good luck and let me emphasis once more go Canon.
I have always liked Canon cameras, and highly recommend them. As for wanting 7 MP, why? Unless you're planning on blowing pictures up poster size, 5 MP would be more than enough. In fact, you can print 8x10s in photo quality with only a 3.2 MP camera. At any rate, go with a Canon!
Unless you're planning on blowing pictures up poster size, 5 MP would be more than enough. In fact, you can print 8x10s in photo quality with only a 3.2 MP camera. At any rate, go with a Canon!I wouldn't just blindly go with one brand -- of course, as a Nikon owner, I would say that, wouldn't I -- but you should narrow it down to three or four cameras that seem to fit and then compare the reviews (DPreview.com is an excellent source) and especially the samples.
Here are two examples of quirks by brand.
Sony's five megapixel compacts are all horrid -- gross over-use of noise reduction from what I've seen and a five MP chip that trails other brands. The seven megapixel DSC-200 that I mentioned does way better. 7MP seems to me to be a real sweet spot for Sony. At a higher price and a higher level of functionality, the DSC-V3 is another example of an impressive Sony 7MP camera.
The big SLR boys like Canon and Nikon have been slow to realize the importance of producing point and shoot cameras that operate quickly; Sony, Fuji, and, of all firms, Casio, were way ahead on this. Nonetheless, at 5MP, I had no hesitation a year ago recommending a Canon A95 to my parents (they didn't mind the slowness issue and in every other respect that camera is outstanding), and I would definitely look at the A95's successor now if you want a five megapixel.
Here are two examples of quirks by brand.
Sony's five megapixel compacts are all horrid -- gross over-use of noise reduction from what I've seen and a five MP chip that trails other brands. The seven megapixel DSC-200 that I mentioned does way better. 7MP seems to me to be a real sweet spot for Sony. At a higher price and a higher level of functionality, the DSC-V3 is another example of an impressive Sony 7MP camera.
The big SLR boys like Canon and Nikon have been slow to realize the importance of producing point and shoot cameras that operate quickly; Sony, Fuji, and, of all firms, Casio, were way ahead on this. Nonetheless, at 5MP, I had no hesitation a year ago recommending a Canon A95 to my parents (they didn't mind the slowness issue and in every other respect that camera is outstanding), and I would definitely look at the A95's successor now if you want a five megapixel.
I would very much recommend a canon since they are so friendly to use and they do really build the very best cameras. I would not recommend a 7MP camera just because of the size of pics, i have a 4MP canon and it works great unless you need a 7MP camera dont go for it.
My camera:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ref=sr_1_4/103-9021126-6394236?_encoding=UTF8
My camera:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ref=sr_1_4/103-9021126-6394236?_encoding=UTF8
Take a look at the Casio Exilim Z750, which is a 7 MP camera, very small and in that price range you mentioned. It's extremely quick, no problems with shutter lag or slowness in reading to the memory card (SD), and the image quality is pretty decent. In addition to being a P&S it also does provide manual control capability, so that is a a plus, as many P&S cameras today do not do that. The menu system is very intuitive, as is the operation of the camera, so that you don't even need to read the manual. (At least I found that I didn't.) Also, someone in the digital photography forum (scroll down the page a ways) mentioned how pleased he is with his new Fujifilm E 900, which is a 9 MP camera with full manual control.
Have fun choosing and then using your new camera!
OTB
Have fun choosing and then using your new camera!
OTB
how big can u blow up an image taken with an 8 MP camera~Shard~ said:I have always liked Canon cameras, and highly recommend them. As for wanting 7 MP, why?
The 8 MP provides more resolution so that if you do blow up an image to make a print of say, 11 x 14, it will still have excellent quality, unlike the same 11 x 14 at 3 MP. Also, more resolution means that you can easily crop an image and not have an adverse effect on it when then blowing it up, as you've still got good resolution. One thing to remember, though, is that the higher resolution -- the more megapixels -- the larger your file size in the memory card and later in the computer.
OTB
OTB
I just bought the Canon A620.
I love it. It shoots fast. Takes very nice pictures. Feel like a real camera, as opposed to some lightweight device. The screen is very nice. It takes shots back to back MUSCH faster than my old A70. It also starts up from OFF to photo in seconds.
Its feature set is good. But it does have some minor issues.
1) no RAW support. I have never needed it, so it was not a big deal for me.
2) I think the Flash is washed out. I am told that because of its 7.1 MP resolution in very low light the built in flash is inadequate for good lighting. What I mean is that the pics turn out, the subject is well lit from 3 to 4 feet, but the background is dark. The camera experts suggest an external flash for dark indoor shots. I define dark as night time, indoors with less than 60 watts of light nearby.
3) My wife says it is too big to fit in her purse easily. But I think that is a GOOD feature.
I am very happy with that purchase.
I love it. It shoots fast. Takes very nice pictures. Feel like a real camera, as opposed to some lightweight device. The screen is very nice. It takes shots back to back MUSCH faster than my old A70. It also starts up from OFF to photo in seconds.
Its feature set is good. But it does have some minor issues.
1) no RAW support. I have never needed it, so it was not a big deal for me.
2) I think the Flash is washed out. I am told that because of its 7.1 MP resolution in very low light the built in flash is inadequate for good lighting. What I mean is that the pics turn out, the subject is well lit from 3 to 4 feet, but the background is dark. The camera experts suggest an external flash for dark indoor shots. I define dark as night time, indoors with less than 60 watts of light nearby.
3) My wife says it is too big to fit in her purse easily. But I think that is a GOOD feature.
I am very happy with that purchase.
Ikstej24 said:
puckhead193 said:how big can u blow up an image taken with an 8 MP camera
Not sure on the dimensions, but I'd guess it would effectively be banner size.
puckhead193 said:how big can u blow up an image taken with an 8 MP camera
The general rule of thumb in printing is using 200 DPI source (although 300 DPI is preferred). 8 MP will yield 544 DPI for 4x6, 467 DPI for 5x7, 327 DPI for 8x10, 233 DPI for 11x14, and 163 DPI for 16x20.
Ikstej24 said:
As a biased Canon user, I must say good choice!
Seriously though, the Canons do always rate extremely high in the reviews. I hope your decision turns out to be a good one. Canon, Canon, Canon
I really enjoy my digital elph SD300. Takes great pictures and I like the small size. It easily fits into my jeans pocket. With the ultra compacts you need to carry around an extra charged battery if you will be taking lots of shots or using the flash. The larger Canons take AA batteries and thus may be more convenient. A 4.0 MP camera will produce stunning images that look fantastic as wallpaper when viewed at 1600*1200.
The photographer for the university uses Canon only products and he highly recommends them. Nikon also makes some nice stuff too, but I have been a Canon fan since the mid 90s.
I think you would really like the PowerShot SD 550. Check it out.
If you want to shoot video get a SanDisk Ultra card. Its fast enough to capture video at high resolutions and framerates without delay.
Have fun with your new toy whatever you get.
I really enjoy my digital elph SD300. Takes great pictures and I like the small size. It easily fits into my jeans pocket. With the ultra compacts you need to carry around an extra charged battery if you will be taking lots of shots or using the flash. The larger Canons take AA batteries and thus may be more convenient. A 4.0 MP camera will produce stunning images that look fantastic as wallpaper when viewed at 1600*1200.
The photographer for the university uses Canon only products and he highly recommends them. Nikon also makes some nice stuff too, but I have been a Canon fan since the mid 90s.
I think you would really like the PowerShot SD 550. Check it out.
If you want to shoot video get a SanDisk Ultra card. Its fast enough to capture video at high resolutions and framerates without delay.
Have fun with your new toy whatever you get.
bodeh6 said:
Do the PowerShot's have a low shutter release delay? That's one thing I can't stand about non-SLR digital or film camera's: the fact that you press the shutter button and three seconds later it'll take the picture.
I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT, and I LOVE it. 8.2 MP's, lightweight bode, SLR functions, NO shutter delay at all, full-auto, semi-auto, semi-manual, and full-manual modes, lots of ISO settings, adjustable white balance, fast CF card write times, USB 2.0 transfer.....it's an amazing camera. Deals can be found on eBay, and I think Costco is selling it with a few lenses and other accessories.
My opinion is almost anything but Canon. I have owned a G5 and it was junk. Then I tried a 350D that I bought for a relative abroad and it was amazingly Fisher Price like. You could get e.g. a Olympus E1 for similar price!!! Just visit Olympus forum on Dpreview and search for a quality problem like "backfocus" Then do the same at a Canon forum....
I own a D50 and some top notch lenses but I don´t know anything about the latest point and shoot cameras, I´m only interested in SLRs.
But remember that the megapixels tell you very little about the image quality, e.g. because some pixels are sharper than others and some models better gamut than others. You also need 4 times more megapixels to double the resolution. Therefore a 16 megapixel camera has only the double resolution of a 4 megapixel camera...
I own a D50 and some top notch lenses but I don´t know anything about the latest point and shoot cameras, I´m only interested in SLRs.
But remember that the megapixels tell you very little about the image quality, e.g. because some pixels are sharper than others and some models better gamut than others. You also need 4 times more megapixels to double the resolution. Therefore a 16 megapixel camera has only the double resolution of a 4 megapixel camera...
Willy S said:
As you can see, you're definitely in the minority with that opinion here, as well as on countless review sites, but that's good - it's always nice to get differing opinions and points of view - helps keep things well-balanced.
Oh, and my recommendation is still to go with a Canon.