Best point-and-shoot digital camera to buy?

[paul06901]

I'm looking to purchase a point-and-shoot digital camera for many various reasons, and I realized how many different models and brands there are out now! It's mind-boggling!

I used to have a Panasonic a few years ago, and it was total garbage.

Any opinions/info?

I'm looking in the $100 range, nothing crazy ... but no junk that will fall apart or not perform decently.


Thanks in advance!

[paul06901]

any help guys?

[Coug46n2]

We have a panasonic Lumix (DMC-FH20 if that helps) and love it. Easy camera to use and no problemos.

[thebear29]

I do not recommend Kodak Easyshare. I have been through two of them, and I think they are junk. I have had success with the Seiko line of cameras. But I would up your budget to less than $200. I'm not sure how much quality you will get at under $100, but I know there are a lot of quality camera in the 140 to 180 range. Good luck and find a camera you are interested in and research it online, there are lots of review sites out there.

[MI Rob]

If possible, get something made by Nikon. They have great quality cameras.

[asujbl]

We have a Canon something - 2nd Canon we've owned and we love it. Was like $175 at Best Buy (but that was the bundle that included memory card and battery)

Canon has always been a top end choice from what I use it for - which is essentially just vacation pictures etc...nothing fancy.

[jlzinck]

Got my wife a Sony and it's great. Was like $130.

[Nicnac]

second on Canon Elph

Lumix are good cameras but the OS is a bit complicated... it's like Windows XP compared to Mac OS on the Canon... Canon OS just makes sense, easy to find how to change things, what to change etc.

[Orangejello727]

Id got my wife a canon elph 800 or something. Just asked her. She totally recommends it. I like the Panasonic Lumix series as well

[LABUMA]

Canon or Nikon are the best choices.

I shoot a Canon DSLR (The detachable lens professional type).


In all honesty, the picture quality of a cheap point and shoot these days is not much above that of a solid camera on a cell phone @ $100 price point.

If you are using it for the random photo here and there, then just use a cell phone.

If you want a point and shoot that takes photos you will actually be happy about, you are going to have to spend $300 or more, and in which case, I would suggest you buy a used low end DSLR camera for $350-$400 and get substantially better image quality and limitless lens capabilities and options.


If you ask me, it comes down to two things:

1: Do you want to take pictures that actually look good and have a lot of flexibility in the type of pictures you can take (sports, portraits, landscape, night time, extremely bright light)? Then save up and spend a little bit of money. You don't have to spend loads of cash either.

2: Image quality is of no real concern and you could care less if your camera can actually take a decent picture in even the most favorable lighting situation.


Coming from someone who has done a bit of photography, if you care at all about taking a decent picture, spend a little money and get something actually worth owning. Because, trust me, as soon as you buy a new camera that costs $100, and you take a few dozen pictures and you stuggle to get things into focus, and the motion blur and lack of image stabilization is obvious in your pictures, the lighting is not properly handled, etc you will become immediately disappointed and regret paying even the $100 for something cheap.

Spend $350-$500 and you can take picture of exceptional quality, all but the sharpest and most high end image quality which you really can only achieve with an extremely expensive lens. You will immediately become very impressed with the results and be happy you spent the extra money.

This picture quality:

http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/...27-resized.jpg

was taken with a $350 DSLR camera and lens combo. This picture has been reduced to about 33% of the original file size. You can literally get 200% more detail than in that photo with $350 worth the equipment. And in fact, I actually somftened th eimage a littl ebit, which enhances mood, but reduces fine detail quite a bit. At 100% zoom, you can see every pore and microfine hair in her skin without having to squint in the original image.

I know, she's hot, but she's mine so Ronlabo better keep his hands off and his tongue in his mouth, hahaha!


I really try to steer people away from P&S cameras because they ALWAYS end up leaving the user disappointed.

However, this:

http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/.../IMG_00342.jpg

was taken with a $300 point and shoot (on the manual setting with proper adjustments accounted for) and I know how to photograph properly. You can immediately see the difference in quality being the grainyness and lack of sharp detail, though here is a bit of motion blur in the cheeks apparent. I did purposefully blur the background on this image in photoshop, but the subject itself was not altered for sharpness. That is with a $300 P&S and image quality doesn't really get better than this for P&S. A $100 camera will produce far less superior results. Photoshop can help a little, but you can't enhance or alter detail that isn't there to begin with.

[Orangejello727]

THe problem with dslr is size!! Just to big to carry around for a non photographer enthusiast.

[LABUMA]

Originally Posted by Orangejello727

THe problem with dslr is size!! Just to big to carry around for a non photographer enthusiast.

An entry level DSLR can nearly fit in your pocket with the lens detached. If you know you are going to take pictures, then put the lens and body in you/your wife's purse and it fits rather nicely. It will weigh all of 1.5 pounds.

I really reccomend a DSLR because even then you can just turn it on "AUTO" and get an extremely superior image to a P&S if you don't understand how to adjust it manually.

The image sensor size is 10X larger and capture that much more detail and quality, and a 20mm lens vs a 56mm-77mm lens also plays to a massive quality gap.


I'm just throwing out the consideration because a $100 camera will leave anyone disappointed and if you want satisfying results with picture taking, use a DSLR. It doesn't have to break the bank. The most expensive DSLR/Lens combo runs about $25,000 and the results are not much better than spending $1,500 unless you need the zoom power of a frickin telescope hahaha. However, the results from spending $350-$500 are extreme compared to $100.

In the end, if the OP decides to spend $100, do NOT consider anything other than Canon or Nikon. Sony would be my 3rd choice, but a distant 3rd. Canon vs. Nikon has been a long-winded debate for a very long time. I use Canon, but honestly, Nikon is every bit as good of a camera as Canon. In some ways better, in some ways worse, but in all categories still very very good compared to any other brand.

[paul06901]

Thank you everyone for the opinions!

I took everyone's advice into consideration and ended up purchasing this:

New Canon PowerShot ELPH 300 HS 12 MP CMOS Camera w/ 1080p HD | eBay


I didn't want to spend over $200, since I'll really only be using this only for card pictures and other random pictures. It got great reviews and it's a Canon!