Suggestions for a Digital Camera

[Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF]

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.

LOL!

Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.

Man, you are so dumb, Flab.

I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.
Flab

http://www.dpreview.com/

Better off pointing her to the right newsgroups. God knows why the dope picked
these ones.
--

- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

[TG'sFM]

On Apr 13, 1:27 pm, "Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF"

Post by Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.

LOL!

Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.

Man, you are so dumb, Flab.

I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.
Flab

http://www.dpreview.com/

Better off pointing her to the right newsgroups. God knows why the dope picked
these ones.

The real sad thing is that you really probably DON'T know why she
picked these ones.

[^Tems^]

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.
Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.
I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.
Fran

Panasonic Lumix

Simple enough for polar bears to use
Loading Image...

[Atheist Chaplain]

Post by ^Tems^

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.
Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.
I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.
Fran

Panasonic Lumix
Simple enough for polar bears to use
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3391251383_6799f98d65_o.jpg

I'll second that, my Dad recently bought one, and while he is in no way
technically illiterate or phobic he found it easy to use, and as to worrying
about bloat ware in the camera software, if you just want to take the photos
off the camera via USB the don't even bother to install the manufacturers
software as just about all OS's now recognise most cameras right out of the
box and will quite happily download them for you without so much as a
hiccup. Having said that, some makers insist on using proprietary formats
that force you to install their usually hard to use and crappy software,
avoid with extreme prejudice if possible.

[Kelpie]

On Apr 14, 10:15 am, "Trevor Wilson"

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.
Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.
I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.

**As another suggested, DP Review is an excellent place to start. It's
unbiased and provides more information about a camera than anyone ever
needs. Since it is a US site, prices will need to be adjusted to local
ones.
Your specific requirements are, of course, specific to you. For your
budget,
you should be able to manage something. Li-Ion batteries are common
enough
and you should expect decent battery life. My second digicam (purchased
in
1999) had a claimed battery life of 1100 shots. In reality, it returned
something like 400 shots between charges. My current camera (purchased in
2003) returns about 1500 shots between charges. Li-Ion rules! I was going
to
buy a spare battery, but it's never been necessary.
* A viewfinder is better (IMO) than a screen, since it eliminates the
need
to wear glasses (for those of us with ageing eyes).
* A good OPTICAL zoom can be real handy.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
I'd be looking at Sony, Canon, Panasonic and the other big brands.
BTW: I hauled out my old Nikon 601, 35mm SLR film camera a few months ago
(I
had to take some photos of a tree, that I suspect may be being poisoned
by a
neighbour and the council does not accept digital images). I was
surprised
and delighted by pretty much everything about it. I kinda wish digicams
worked the same way.

I saw someone using a fairly small (maybe 60mm * 40 mm) camera in the
shopping centre the other day and it seemed to flash quite quickly. I
should have asked them ...
Given my experience with the A200, I've gone off Canon a bit
**The A200 was released in 2002. That's an eternity in digicam years. The
A200 uses a CCD sensor. CCD sensors are HUGE energy sucking devices. They
only work properly with Li-Ion batteries. Most entry level camers (and
most high end cameras) now use CMOS sensors.

Nope. nearly all point and shoot cameras still use CCD.





Battery life is now rarely a

problem, regardless of what kind of battery is used. I have never owned,
nor even used a Canon digicam, but, IMO, to disregard them may be a not so
good idea. One of my mates is a professional photographer and has ceased
using his large format cameras, in favour of a high end Canon. He swears
by them. Another mate has the cutest little Canon digicam I've ever seen.
He claims it is a delight to use and will be buying another Canon soon.
Your best option (apart from reading DP Review) is to pop down to your
local camera shop (or Hardly Normal, et al) and pick up the various
cameras in your price range and take some test shots.
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=103416&catId=100282&tid=100008&p=1&title=Digital+cameras%3a+compact+reviews
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

Post by Kelpie

On Apr 14, 10:15 am, "Trevor Wilson"

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.
Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.
I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.

**As another suggested, DP Review is an excellent place to start. It's
unbiased and provides more information about a camera than anyone ever
needs. Since it is a US site, prices will need to be adjusted to local
ones.
Your specific requirements are, of course, specific to you. For your
budget,
you should be able to manage something. Li-Ion batteries are common
enough
and you should expect decent battery life. My second digicam (purchased
in
1999) had a claimed battery life of 1100 shots. In reality, it returned
something like 400 shots between charges. My current camera (purchased in
2003) returns about 1500 shots between charges. Li-Ion rules! I was
going to
buy a spare battery, but it's never been necessary.
* A viewfinder is better (IMO) than a screen, since it eliminates the
need
to wear glasses (for those of us with ageing eyes).
* A good OPTICAL zoom can be real handy.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
I'd be looking at Sony, Canon, Panasonic and the other big brands.
BTW: I hauled out my old Nikon 601, 35mm SLR film camera a few months
ago (I
had to take some photos of a tree, that I suspect may be being poisoned
by a
neighbour and the council does not accept digital images). I was
surprised
and delighted by pretty much everything about it. I kinda wish digicams
worked the same way.

I saw someone using a fairly small (maybe 60mm * 40 mm) camera in the
shopping centre the other day and it seemed to flash quite quickly. I
should have asked them ...
Given my experience with the A200, I've gone off Canon a bit
**The A200 was released in 2002. That's an eternity in digicam years. The
A200 uses a CCD sensor. CCD sensors are HUGE energy sucking devices. They
only work properly with Li-Ion batteries. Most entry level camers (and
most high end cameras) now use CMOS sensors.

Nope. nearly all point and shoot cameras still use CCD.

**Really?

I must go and check.

Yep, you're correct. Most are, indeed, CCD. Fran, if you're reading this,
look for a camera that uses rechargeable Li-Ion batteries.

[Fran]

On Apr 14, 12:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

Post by Trevor Wilson

Post by Kelpie

On Apr 14, 10:15 am, "Trevor Wilson"

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.
Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but the
flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to take
pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse, it
swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol during
a post-match booze ban.
I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?) that
has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that goes off
as soon as you press the button to take the shot, reasonable battery
life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.

**As another suggested, DP Review is an excellent place to start. It's
unbiased and provides more information about a camera than anyone ever
needs. Since it is a US site, prices will need to be adjusted to local
ones.
Your specific requirements are, of course, specific to you. For your
budget,
you should be able to manage something. Li-Ion batteries are common
enough
and you should expect decent battery life. My second digicam (purchased
in
1999) had a claimed battery life of 1100 shots. In reality, it returned
something like 400 shots between charges. My current camera (purchased in
2003) returns about 1500 shots between charges. Li-Ion rules! I was
going to
buy a spare battery, but it's never been necessary.
* A viewfinder is better (IMO) than a screen, since it eliminates the
need
to wear glasses (for those of us with ageing eyes).
* A good OPTICAL zoom can be real handy.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
I'd be looking at Sony, Canon, Panasonic and the other big brands.
BTW: I hauled out my old Nikon 601, 35mm SLR film camera a few months
ago (I
had to take some photos of a tree, that I suspect may be being poisoned
by a
neighbour and the council does not accept digital images). I was
surprised
and delighted by pretty much everything about it. I kinda wish digicams
worked the same way.

I saw someone using a fairly small (maybe 60mm * 40 mm) camera in the
shopping centre the other day and it seemed to flash quite quickly. I
should have asked them ...
Given my experience with the A200, I've gone off Canon a bit
**The A200 was released in 2002. That's an eternity in digicam years. The
A200 uses a CCD sensor. CCD sensors are HUGE energy sucking devices. They
only work properly with Li-Ion batteries. Most entry level camers (and
most high end cameras) now use CMOS sensors.

Nope. nearly all point and shoot cameras still use CCD.

**Really?
I must go and check.
Yep, you're correct. Most are, indeed, CCD. Fran, if you're reading this,
look for a camera that uses rechargeable Li-Ion batteries.

Yes ... I thought this must be so. This is still in the (relatively
recent) text books I use to teach IPT ...

Fran

[Horry]

Post by Trevor Wilson

Post by Kelpie

news:74a5b512-995f-4730-
On Apr 14, 10:15 am, "Trevor Wilson"

news:6e844fd0-e1bc-444a-

We're at the stage where our household needs a new digital camera.
At the moment we have a Canon PowerShot A200 and to be fair, it has
never been that good a camera.
Oh sure it takes a reasonable image of things that stay still, but
the flash takes most of a second to fire, so when you're trying to
take pictures of your dogs it's a total waste of time. Even worse,
it swallows battery power faster than an NRL player downs alcohol
during a post-match booze ban.
I'm hoping for a camera that is not too expensive (under $300?)
that has reasonable resolution (up to 5 megapixels), a flash that
goes off as soon as you press the button to take the shot,
reasonable battery life, an easy USB interface to a PC without too
much bloatware.
Sensible suggestions are welcomed.

**As another suggested, DP Review is an excellent place to start.
It's unbiased and provides more information about a camera than
anyone ever needs. Since it is a US site, prices will need to be
adjusted to local ones.
Your specific requirements are, of course, specific to you. For your
budget,
you should be able to manage something. Li-Ion batteries are common
enough
and you should expect decent battery life. My second digicam
(purchased in
1999) had a claimed battery life of 1100 shots. In reality, it
returned something like 400 shots between charges. My current camera
(purchased in
2003) returns about 1500 shots between charges. Li-Ion rules! I was
going to
buy a spare battery, but it's never been necessary.
* A viewfinder is better (IMO) than a screen, since it eliminates the
need
to wear glasses (for those of us with ageing eyes). * A good OPTICAL
zoom can be real handy.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
Lens quality.
I'd be looking at Sony, Canon, Panasonic and the other big brands.
BTW: I hauled out my old Nikon 601, 35mm SLR film camera a few months
ago (I
had to take some photos of a tree, that I suspect may be being
poisoned by a
neighbour and the council does not accept digital images). I was
surprised
and delighted by pretty much everything about it. I kinda wish
digicams worked the same way.

I saw someone using a fairly small (maybe 60mm * 40 mm) camera in the
shopping centre the other day and it seemed to flash quite quickly. I
should have asked them ...
Given my experience with the A200, I've gone off Canon a bit
**The A200 was released in 2002. That's an eternity in digicam years.
The A200 uses a CCD sensor. CCD sensors are HUGE energy sucking
devices. They only work properly with Li-Ion batteries. Most entry
level camers (and most high end cameras) now use CMOS sensors.

Nope. nearly all point and shoot cameras still use CCD.

**Really?
I must go and check.
Yep, you're correct.

And the backpedalling begins...