# Point and shoot camera suggestions?



## jswordy (May 2, 2012)

I would be glad to post more pix to the site, and I recently bottled my most gorgeous wine (as far as being an attractive fluid) ever in a nice blueberry - such a pretty thing! - but my Cannon SD880is point and shoot camera refuses to turn on now. It's a flaw in design with the battery door that, once it wears some, keeps it from turning on a little tiny switch to allow the juice to flow. So I got 4 years out of my $250 - really not the kind of value I had expected. Time for another, since shipping it off for repair costs as much as a new one. Tsk - thing looks brand new!

Hence, this post. What would you all recommend in point and shoot? Should I stay with Canon (they have some decent looking ELPHs out)? Or should I go Nikon? Or what?

I want to stay under $250 and I do want optical zoom. Other than that, most bells and whistles I will not use. I use it to take photos. 

Looking at these and more...

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNPSE300HSK&omid=106&ref=cag&CAWELAID=1067500680

http://www.walmart.com/ip/20512310?adid=22222222227014916938&wmlspartner=wlpa&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=13703697070&wl4=&wl5=pla

Help me out. What do you suggest?


----------



## cpfan (May 2, 2012)

Jim...Personally I am most definitely a Canon fan. Own 2 digital SLRs, and 4 point&shoots.

I have heard and read some bad stories about Nikons over the last few months (mainly the SLRs though) and nothing so bad about Canons. That's without actually looking for bad stories. One of the Nikon SLR stories was on another message area that I frequent, and Canon definitely won the follow-up discussion. But like I said that's SLRs.

One thing that I don't like about the new Canon point&shoots is that they have dropped the panorama support. It was never great, you had to shoot several pics and then use software to stitch them together. It's a feature that I have been using, so dropping support does not impress me.

SONY seems to have some nice p&s cameras, but I have never really used one. I like their Sweep Panorama feature but you can't zoom and use SweepPan, otherwise I would have bought one last June. (I should have bought it from Costco, and returned it within 90 days. But I'm not good at parting with a camera once I own it.)

Basically, it depends what you want to take pictures of. Grandkids? Most p&s cameras are too slow.

Your 880 was only 4x optical zoom (28-112 equivalent). The ELPH300 is 5x optical zoom (24-120mm). I like longer than that, but that's personal.

Steve


----------



## Runningwolf (May 3, 2012)

I have a Nikon and the wife has a Canon. I like the Canon hands down!


----------



## almargita (May 3, 2012)

To be honest, my new Iphone takes some of the best pictures I have taken. New apps have all the editing capabilities that you can ever want. Plus you don't have to carry another item. 

Al


----------



## Wade E (May 3, 2012)

I have a Nikon coolpix thsts like 9 years old now and it still works great, its a little outdated as far as mega pixels goes but still takes a good pic. I must say that my new Samsung Skyrocket takes a great pic so if you have a cell phone thatz ready for an upgrade I would just go that route that wsy you always have your canera with you.


----------



## Boatboy24 (May 3, 2012)

We've got a Nikon S8100 that I'm very pleased with. Had it about 18 months now. Nice point and shoot, but offers some flexibility if you want to play with settings. 10x optical zoom too.

Edit: I see it is now the S8200. Looks like the same camera, with some slightly improved specs.


----------



## BobF (May 3, 2012)

I have a Canon Powershot I picked up for ~$130 to keep with me. It's the Bees Knees!!


----------



## jswordy (May 3, 2012)

Thanks for the camera suggestions!


----------



## grapeman (May 3, 2012)

You just can't beat a Kodak Brownie....................... Well maybe you can because you probably couldn't even get film for it let alone get them developed anymore.


----------



## Flem (May 3, 2012)

grapeman said:


> You just can't beat a Kodak Brownie....................... Well maybe you can because you probably couldn't even get film for it let alone get them developed anymore.


 
That and the Polarioid Land camera.


----------



## Wade E (May 3, 2012)

Cmon guys, take it back up to the 19th century!!! LOL


----------



## Ernest T Bass (May 3, 2012)

Herz what I did. I found a Nikon - CoolPix P90 at a hock shop, Carring case, battery charger and spare battery, Looked like new. Went home and checked on the internet and they cost about $600, the hock shop wanted $200. Went back and offered him $150 "straingt up", and he said,
"Cash Money", ---yep!. That was about a year ago and its still working good. My advice on the brand to get is, check the hock shops and see what they have and how much, then check the internet, offer a lot less than you expect to get it for, after you get where you are willing to pay, then mention "Cash" and drop the price a little more, 10% usually works.
Remember, you ask for advice, thats how I do it.
Semper Fi


----------



## jswordy (May 4, 2012)

grapeman said:


> You just can't beat a Kodak Brownie....................... Well maybe you can because you probably couldn't even get film for it let alone get them developed anymore.


 
I have one made in 1950, complete with box, instructions and all accessories. It was my mother's. Pristine shape.


----------



## PCharles (May 4, 2012)

Here's a site where you can compare camera features.
http://www.dpreview.com/

I also have used this online store before. They've always given me good advice and prices are competative.
http://www.42photo.com/

And, I hope you don't mind if I share a photo taken recently. This is a gray tree frog on one of our red roses.


----------



## ibglowin (May 4, 2012)

I was hoping you would pop in here Charles.

Great pic!


----------



## grapeman (May 4, 2012)

I was also hoping you would post Paul. My reference to an antique camera was to create levity and was not a serious recommendation. I am still using a 4 year old Kodak 6440. It is starting to give me more quirky problems all the time, such as fogging up, the aperture not opening completely in cold weather and so on.


----------



## Brew and Wine Supply (May 4, 2012)

Internet story a while back, 10 things not to buy. one of them was a camera. the new phones have better cameras in them than most single cameras on the market.


----------



## cpfan (May 4, 2012)

Brew and Wine Supply said:


> Internet story a while back, 10 things not to buy. one of them was a camera. the new phones have better cameras in them than most single cameras on the market.


May or may not be true, but it depends on what features you are looking for.

I don't think a phone's camera is as good as my DSLRs or my high end point-and-shoots. But for a very simple snapshot camera they are probably fine. (Not that I have ever used one.)

Camera phones are now reaching 5 & 8 megapixels, and that's fine for most needs. OTOH, they don't have zoom capability, the lack of which would drive me batty. Pics taken with a camera phone can be shared quickly, if that's important to you.

One story I read said that the time between pics on the phones was better than on the less expensive cameras. Then said that was probably because the phone didn't have to re-focus because it didn't zoom.

Steve


----------



## ibglowin (May 4, 2012)

I know a little about camera's. One things for sure. It's not all about megapixels. They are important but not the end all as far as picture quality. More important than megapixels is good old fashioned optics and that means "hardware" as in the lens. You want the most (highest) optical zoom you can get in a camera, even a point and shoot. Once you get up to the max optical zoom your digital camera switches over to digital zoom. Now its just taking the image and multiplying pixels to create an enhanced higher zoomed image. 

So for any camera, get the most optical zoom you can then the most megapixels after that. Point and shoots are notorious for not having much optical zoom (usually 2X or 4X max) Your larger DSLR's are going to have way more but they will not fit in your pants pocket or jacket so there's your trade off. Portability or sharper picture. Decide what is ultimately more important to you. When your on your vacation do you want to lug around a camera bag or not.


----------



## Brew and Wine Supply (May 4, 2012)

cpfan said:


> May or may not be true, but it depends on what features you are looking for.
> 
> [I don't think a phone's camera is as good as my DSLRs or my high end point-and-shoots. But for a very simple snapshot camera they are probably fine. (Not that I have ever used one.)
> 
> ...


 
At the moment, I can not post photos from my I phone on the forum with out resizeing them.


----------



## TJsBasement (May 4, 2012)

Brew do you use the app. Its super easy for me to post from a iP 4 with app. And I think it has a 5 meg chip. For simple stuff it's nice and quick and good quality, stopped using a "real" camera but then again I do no "real" photography.


----------



## cpfan (May 4, 2012)

Doug:

Digital zoom is a waste of time (IMO). I have used it once or twice in many years of digital camera ownership. Both Jim (the original poster) and I want a decent optical zoom.

Steve


----------



## TJsBasement (May 4, 2012)

Its not really pocket friendly but here is a iphone optical zoom. I seen others too but this come up first.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/01/add-8x-optical-zoom-iphone-eye-scope/


----------



## jswordy (May 8, 2012)

OK, I have ordered the camera. Since I carry a company-paid phone that is not a smartphone of any brand, I need a camera and not a phone. I'd prefer to carry no cellphone whatsoever, and cannot wait for the day when I no longer am required to do so. 

Despite my experience with poor longevity on my current Canon, I bought a Canon Powershot SX260HS. It will do everything I want - actually way more than I really need.

Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## ibglowin (May 8, 2012)

20X Optical. Nice!


----------



## cpfan (May 8, 2012)

Jim:

I have the SX200. Looks like a predecessor to the SX260HS. I'm quite happy with it, and use it a lot in situations where I don't want to carry a DSLR (or when I have to shoot through a fence).

My biggest issue with the SX200 is that it is slow at times. That's not good for things moving quickly (like kids) unless you get good at anticipating the movement. Plus I have trouble keeping it level, presumably cause it's lighter than my DSLR and when I push the shutter, that side of the camera moves down. Gotta work on that more.

Steve


----------



## jswordy (May 9, 2012)

It's one step up from my old one, and when I looked at the models above this, they basically had shorter zooms and a bunch of features added that did not improve performance and are useless to me, like WiFi and etc. They have shipped it, so we will see what's what shortly. 

Mike, I definitely was going for the longest optical zoom I could get, and 12.1 megapixels is plenty fine for my use. Steve, if that's an SX200 shot you posted, I should be very pleased.


----------



## cpfan (May 9, 2012)

jswordy said:


> Steve, if that's an SX200 shot you posted, I should be very pleased.


Yup it is. Hopefully the SX260 is the same with some improvements. It has a longer zoom, which I'm not sure about. I find the SX200 zoom a little long for hand holding (might be my age). I think the SX260 also has a slightly wider wide angle, which I would like sometimes.

Steve


----------



## jswordy (May 10, 2012)

cpfan said:


> Yup it is. Hopefully the SX260 is the same with some improvements. It has a longer zoom, which I'm not sure about. I find the SX200 zoom a little long for hand holding (might be my age). I think the SX260 also has a slightly wider wide angle, which I would like sometimes.
> 
> Steve


 
Steve, I'm under the impression it has a different image stabilization software than yours does. Hopefully that will help with the zoom. I have photojournalistic experience with Nikon 35mm SLRs from back in the film days, and going handheld with a really long lens has not been a problem for me in the past. We'll see soon! 

I still have my old FM with all the lenses. We sure saw a lot together.


----------

