I have been doing some research into buying a new digital camera. My sony is nearly 4yrs old and Im ready for an upgrade. I thoguht about another sony but Cnet gave them all stinky ratings.
I ahve decided on the Canon Powershot S60. It is the update to the S50 which was ranked number one on Cnet's list of 5MP cameras.
So any of you that know about cameras could you look at the S60 page:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=10149
and let me know if 1.) its a good camera (picture quality is supposed to be comparable to the S50, which had excellent pictures according to Cnet) and 2.) Is it a good camera for $345?
Thanks!

AGr -
I just did the whole range comparison for digitals up to $500. What do you want to spend and, more importantly, what features do you NEED?

Im pretty set on the S60, because of its features. And that price. I jsut need some one who knows about photography to give the specs of the camera a once over for me.

Am watching this thread with interest. I might be in the market for a replacement, as well. I luv my Cybershot DSC-P51, but it is outdated with 2 mega-pixels. My brother showed me his Cybershot that he got in Singapore that had better resolution (3.5?), but is no bigger than a cigarette pack with a slide front. Cool!

I suggest you look at this review: here.

If it's in your price range and you want a P&S compact, then it looks quite reasonable.

If you want the best results, you'll need to shoot in RAW mode and learn some digital darkroom techniques.

Im actually leaning back towards the Sony Dsc-P100.
For several reasons. Its cheaper, pictures arent half bad, it has a battery meter (Canon s60, doesnt), the sony also is much smaller and has burst mode.

I have a Sony P10 and I can tell you it is an excellent camera. I have had zero problems with mine. It has an excellent battery life, varying pixel modes, burst (as has been noted) can edit within the camera - many more nice features. Be sure to do a search on the camera model name if buying on the internet because you can get some nice pricing, but I got mine at Best Buys and bought the extended warranty which will pay for a new battery if ever necesary. I can tell you that this is an intuitively asy to use camera. I carry mine in my pocket when out and about (though I have case for it) but do attach it to a beltloop with a mini caribiner (just in case).

I don't profess to be a digital camera expert, but I bought a Canon A70 (3.2 Mp) several months ago and am quite pleased with it. After comparing several units in the $300 / 3+ Mp range I chose the Canon because it uses 4 AA batteries (rechargeable) as opposed to 2 AA (longer life) or the expensive Lithium 3V disposables.

Something people forget is that unless you are going to make fairly large prints, anything more than 2MP is overkill, and the extra filesize takes more storage and processing time (for web display, you compress the JPEGs anyway).

The biggest problem I have with these tiny cameras is the size and quality of the lenses, which result in lots of fringing and distortions at wide angles.

If you want convenience and features, they are fine. If you want quality photographs, an SLR or similar camera is a necessity.

Cameras that use the LCD screen as the viewfinder also use up betteries the fastest, since the screen is the main consumer of power.

Yes, anything above 2MP is a waste unless you're printing posters, lol.

I have the Sony P8. It's a 3.1 MP, but I set it for 2.4. I think it takes very good pictures for a point and shoot on the auto modes. It also can be totally manual with all settings. My only complaint is that to use the zoom effectively, the camera really needs to be on a tripod. I imagine it's the same for the P10.

I also would rather have a digital that you can buy interchangable lenses for, however, one of those is about $900!

Just realize Kodak says to have equal detail of a mid-speed ISO 100 35 mm film, you would need at least 24 Megapixels. Popular Photography magazine says it would take 40 Megapixel.

I always take my digital pictures at the highest resolution and highest detail. That means I can clip if needed and still have a reasonable image.

My Sony is 3.5 Megapixel and each image is about 1.5 Megs. But since I have two 256Meg Memory Sticks which gives me room for over 300 images, I see no need to lower the resolution of the original.

My only "complaint" about the sony is that it took me awhile to realize the automatic setting doesn't do a good job of adjusting it for a no flash low light picture. I have to manually adjust it to get a decent picture in these conditions.

Allen's points are correct, but need to be understood. The "detail" equivalence is based on the number of silver-oxide paricles on a frame vs. the number of pixels. However, the rendering medium (screen, printer, scanner) becomes the critical factor for resolution. Only slides really capture the entire range of the film as it is a direct projection.

If you have large storage capacity, then shooting at maximum resolution is generally best, but doing so can affect the camera's performance (e.g., it takes longer for the camera to write the image to the CF card from its buffer). For snapshot shooting this isn't a big deal. It can be a good idea to shoot in bracketing mode to get the best exposure, and the higher resolution can slow that operation.

No-flash low-light pictures require shooting at high ISO levels; most P&S cameras will go up to ISO400, but the price to pay is increased digital noise. My Kodak 720x is a high-ISO camera that is good to ISO4000+, so I can shoot in pretty dim light and in interiors. The downside is that the camera and 20-35mm lens weighs over 4 pounds, which is not ideal for geocaching on long hikes.

The price of SLR digital cameras is coming down, with some consumer models available from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, and Sigma. Some reasonable-priced used ones can be found on eBay. Even so, the cost of good lenses will almost always exceed the cost of the body.

In the final assessment, you need to decide what kind of photagraphy you want to do and choose a camera that meets those needs and your price point.

I found Film Vs Digital by R. N. Clark very interesting. Especially FILM versus DIGITAL Discussion and Executive Summary. He shows where he thinks digital is better than film and where film is better than digital.

Me I like digital, I take many more digital pictures than I ever did with my film SLR. The cost of an unprinted digital picture is close to zero. CDR are cheap, and so I can keep all my pictures in case I ever want to put them on paper.

I agree completely with the above. I'm in a couple of digital photography fora, and most of the participants are professionals who have switched from film to digital. Even those who previously shot medium format switched once cameras like the Nikon slr/n and Canon 10D offer such large pixel sizes.

Now what do I do with all the unused film in my freezer?

Well I agree also, tho my cameras are not in the same league as KVOMs. I love my Nikon N-65 SLR and all the lenses. But, I really like the print quality I get with my digital Sony P8 much better except when using lenses is involved. I have no doubt that I'll eBay both in the next year and invest in a high end digital that has interchangable lens capabilities.

I mainly do point and shoot. But want some manual features so i cna take some good pictures or neat pictures(slow shutter speed).
Im really leaning toward the Sony DSC-P100, because its very small and has nearly all the features of the Canon S60. And I love my sony DSC-P50, which is nearly 4yrs old. I saw the test photos of a Sony DSC-P100 and Im not quite sure the people of Cnet were thinking. It takes suprisingly good pictures.
And an added feature, but not a nessicsity is it comes in a blue case also (DSC-P100/LJ). Although the silver model and blue model are the same price, i can only find cheap silver models. Lowest blue model is $346 on ebay. lowest silver is $318 on mayfairdigital.com.

I just bought the Canon s410. Canon always seems to get good ratings on cnet.
I like the small size of the camera (slip in yourpocket)and it is loaded with features.

Plus I bought the waterproof case so I can use it Scuba diving too or out in the snow on the slopes

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trez:
I bought the waterproof case so I can use it Scuba diving too

---

Cool, I want to see pictures as soon as you have some.

Scuba? Trez, you ought to be logging Scragg Island cache real soon now!

AGr -
Narrow it down to about 4 choices then go here:
www.imaging-resource.com/CAMDB/compare_cameras.php. Let me know if you have trouble with the address.

I bought a 4mp Nikon Cool-Pix 4300, mostly because you can buy 2 additional lenses for it (tele & wide angle) and because it has a flash ring available for macro work (for my business).

Going back, write down your priorities, in order, of your needs.
Bear in mind the different battery options because if you go out for an entire day caching you may want to buy a camera with a rechargable pack, buy an extra, and charge them both before you go.
You'll probably want to decide how long it will be before you plan to get your next camera.
If you'll update in a couple of years, you can leave off a lot of the overkill features. If you want to use this camera a long time you will want to weigh things like lenses, hotshoe, max mps, etc.
All I'll say is think, make your priority list and THEN shop features. They all are so close when you get down to choosing 2 or 3 you will have a hard time if you don't prioritize needs.

Everyone else - check out the site for future use, it's invaluable.

OH, PS - this site will allow you to compare not only features but the PICTURES each camera takes (lab and site).