Which Digital Camera is best for Beginners?

[breezylawn]

Hi,
At long last we are getting a digital camera. We'd like to know if anyone has suggestions on some of the ones that are very user friendly for beginners.
The biggest thing we need is for the camera to point and shoot, use our printer that we have currently, and take pics on vacation and also some shot of interior homes for real estate use. Any suggestions? I realize there are many price ranges out there, so let's start out with $200+
Thanks,

 

[dougp26364]

In the past, I had an aversion to Kodak digital camera's but, over the last several years they've become considerably better in quality and are extremely user friendly. Presently I have a Kodak Z340 which takes very nice pictures, has a 10X optical zoom lens and several easy to use features to improve the picture quality plus, the viewing screen is large enough to actually get an idea of the picture you've just taken.

In the past we've owned Cannon, Olympus and Hewlett Packard camera's as well. We still use the Cannon and it takes great pictures but is just a little less user friendly than the Kodak IMO. Both the HP and the Olympus were very good camera's at the time we purchased them but, time moves on and them became outdated. There was nothing wrong with either camera and both took very nice pictures. Tech. just moved forward and the newer camera's were that much better.

However, you asked about ease of use and, at least for now, my vote for a good point and shoot camera that will take good quality pics, is reasonably priced and easy to use out of the box would be the Kodak family.

 

[Gracey]

There was a great thread around Christmas about digital camera's. I just did a search but it didn't come up. I ended up buying a HP Photosmart R817. Ease of use was my first concern. I also wanted a decent zoom and it has 5.l megapixel (whatever that is) basically I just wanted a decent, easy to use camera that was easy to use with my printer. Well I love it, great pictures and this months issue of consumer reports is about digital camera's and it is rated in the top 10. I paid around 285.00 for it.

Good Luck, Laurie

 

[debraxh]

I also recently bought an HP R817 and love it, price was right around $200. The only negative I can think of is that there is no viewfinder and learning to use the LCD only took a bit of getting used to.

I would suggest going to an electronic store with a big display, play around with each one in your price range, compare features, and just pick the one that feels best to you. I think most, if not all, of the major brands are so similar that one is not necessarily better than the others. IMHO of course.

Good luck and have fun with your new camera!

 

[ctreelmom]

We have two Kodak EasyShares in the family. Mine is the DX6440 with 4 MPs and I LOVE it. It's got a 33-132 mm zoom and a 4X Optical zoom. Very easy to use; it's a couple of years old now and still works great. It will even take about 3 minutes of video which came in very handy when DH was on the flowrider at the Massanutten Water Park!

When I was doing my research, I read repeatedly in the reviews that the battery door is cheesy--indeed it is, and maybe Kodak has corrected that by now, but it has held up very well. I bought my now 13 year-old the CX7330 which is 3.1 megapixels and a 37-111mm zoom with 3X Optical zoom for her 12th birthday. She is thrilled with the results she gets and I believe that model was only around $100.

 

[amshah97]

I would recommend the Canon ELPH line of cameras (from the SD400 to the SD700). They are small in size so you can easily take them everywhere you go. They take great pictures. You can leave it in fully automatic or even adjust some settings as you want.

I own a Canon S30 (about 4yrs old) and a new Canon Rebel XT (digital SLR) and they have been excellent cameras.

Often times Dell.com has really good deals on Canon cameras. For example, I have seen the SD550 for $300 through Dell. Keep checking www.slickdeals.net and www.techbargains.com, the coupons show up every week or so.

 

[Icarus]

Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5. Read reviews for all of these on dpreview.com

-David

 

[teachingmyown]

My vote is hands-down for the Kodak. I've loved mine for years, for its ease of use, battery life, features etc but its value was reconfirmed for me last month when my techno-geek nephew was IMPRESSED with how quickly it downloaded the pics I took at his graduation onto his computer. One touch--bam. He said it was way faster than his own much newer camera of a different brand.

 

[boyblue]

After a lot of research (and a bit of hesitation - for some reason I always prefer Canon) I decided on the Panisonic TZ-1Here's the current list of top Cameras

There are only two "pocket" cameras in the top 10 and with a 10x zoom I don't know if you can pass up the TZ1.

 

[Icarus]

I agree .. my TZ5 has no perceptible lag between pressing the shutter release button and taking the picture. Plus the lens is pretty amazing and it has a "simple" mode which is very good, especially for beginners since it reduces the learning curve to zero, and it has optical zoom and image stabilization.

That's why I suggested reading the reviews for any choices on dpreview before making a decision.

That said, while I love dpreview for reviews and info, I think their top 20 list is just what people have been clicking on and researching. Other than that, it doesn't mean much. The text on the bottom of the page says how they compile those lists.

-David

 

[nightnurse613]

Loops-You know, we must have the same disease because I thought I had seen a lengthy discussion on this same topic and couldn't find it either. I am looking at the Canon A430 for the OM but, someone told me there was lens problems. I know he had an old Canon Rebel when we got married that he loved (almost as much as me, I think).

 

[breezylawn]

Thank you all for your help. After doing some online research and visiting Circuit City a couple of time speaking with a well informed gal we decided on a Sony CyberShot with 7 mega pixels....and we're just lovin' it! Breezy:whoopie:

 

[ysr_racer]

Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5. Read reviews for all of these on dpreview.com

-David

Hi David, I have an FZ5. Outdoors it's great, indoors it falls on it's face. The pictures are to "washed out" from the flash.

Maybe the FZ7 is better?

 

[Kal]

After a lot of research (and a bit of hesitation - for some reason I always prefer Canon) I decided on the Panisonic TZ-1Here's the current list of top Cameras

There are only two "pocket" cameras in the top 10 and with a 10x zoom I don't know if you can pass up the TZ1.

That list isn't necessarily the "top cameras" but rather the list of cameras most people are interested in the review. It's noteworthy that of the too 15 cameras, Canon and Nikon represent 13 of the 15 positions. Canon outscores Nikon by a substantial margin.

That's not a surprise as IMHO Canon has the very best digital image processing and camera control technology on the market. The chip in the very newest Canon models is spectacular.

 

[nightnurse613]

I was watching this forum before Christmas when we had a similar thread. Wound up not getting a camera, figured I get one for his birthday. Then I couldn't find the thread. Then this thread came up. :zzz: ANYWAY, I have done a lot of reading and a lot of soul searching. I have been on ebay for the past month looking for the right price. Today, I saw that Ritz Camera (?) had the Nikon L4 for $139 (I was looking in the under $200 range). Also, saw the Canon A610 all over ebay. Mostly going for about $180. I knew my OM liked Canon and Nikon, which to chose?? When I saw the Canon A610 on ebay from a local, I knew it was fate. If you want to read up try the dpreview.com site. CNET.com can also be helpful. I am exhausted.:zzz:

 

[Icarus]

Hi David, I have an FZ5. Outdoors it's great, indoors it falls on it's face. The pictures are to "washed out" from the flash.

Maybe the FZ7 is better?

I haven't had that problem.

I'm sure there's an adjustment to step down the flash, and you should be able to set that as a default in one of the menus. Check the manual. I had the same problem with an earlier Nikon digital camera. Stepping it down a notch or too worked.

-David

 

[ysr_racer]

Here's a link to some pic's I took. Check out the last 4 or 5:

http://www.quriverside.com/magicgallery/QU_2006.htm

 

[Icarus]

Were those under flourescent lights? You need to adjust for flourescent lighting. Not sure if they have an adjustment for that or not built in.

Not sure what I'm looking for. You definitely got some interesting moire patterns going on the first few (on the blind fences).

-David

 

[mtngal]

You've found out why I tend to avoid flash photography - I'm not familiar with the FZ5, but on the FZ30 I briefly owned, there was an adjustment in the menus to compensate for a flash that was too "hot." If the FZ5 doesn't have that, you could try putting something like vellum over the flash to work as a diffuser. You could try paper, but it doesn't pass much light, so it might not provide enough light. The best thing to do for flash photography is to get the flash off the camera. Does your camera have a hot-shoe (again, I'm not familiar with the FZ5)? If so, you can buy a flash that will fit on it, aim it up and make a paper deflector to bouce the flash back down, changing the angle of the light, and softening it. I'm not an expert on flash - I prefer to use whatever light is available (I know that's sometimes difficult).

I wonder if the moire patterns are caused by compression or re-sizing? The camera isn't known for being poor that way.

 

[MikeM132]

I read this too late for you....but for anyone curious down the road, a great site to check out camera's is "Steve's Digicams". This guy gets every camera from every company and does an incredible review, along with sample pictures, etc.. I have never seen so much work go into reviewing stuff like this.
For the record, I am now on my third Kodak (in over 10 years---I had one of the originals). It is a pocket-type, V550, which takes very good pictures and is small enough to have with me all the time (something I learned is very important in a "vacation" camera). My wife has a Canon Elph-series, 3.1MP (mine is a 5MP). Her 3.1 took the best picture I have ever taken in my life (of a Maui sunset) and we had Kodak blow it up to 20x30". It is PERFECT and hangs over our fireplace. So long as you don't fool around with editing software (or, if you do, that you know what you're doing with it), even a 3.1MP camera can take a picture that blows up to huge size and looks fantastic. Point is, don't rule out a 3MP camera as not being able to make big pictures--they certainly can so long as you don't have to crop, brighten, sharpen,etc after the fact. (or unless you are pretty good at photo editing and know about comression of .jpeg files).

 

[Kal]

Mike - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Print quality images are about 300 pixels/inch. In order to get a print quality 20" x 30" image it would take the following: (bear with the arithmetic)

@ 300 p/i -
20" x 300 p/i x 30" x 300 p/i = 54,000,000 pixels (or 54 mega pixels)

Internet quality images are at 72 p/i or -
20" x 72 p/i x 30" x 72 p/i = 3.1 mega pixels

 

[breezylawn]

:whoopie: We got a Sony Cypershot! We are still novices, but we just returned from Florida....thanks for all your suggestions.

 

[sandesurf]

I also recently bought an HP R817 and love it, price was right around $200. The only negative I can think of is that there is no viewfinder and learning to use the LCD only took a bit of getting used to.

Good luck and have fun with your new camera!

You hit my question on the head. How hard is it to get used to not having a view finder? I'm going to be buying a camera by Sunday to take on my vacation and have narrowed it down to two. The one I like the most has NO viewfinder, which is something that was on my "must have" list.
My choices are, Sony cybershot W50 or the Olympus FE190. I have an older Sony and have been happy with it but I like the fact that the Olympus has the stabilizer feature and have been told they create a better picture.
Thanks for all relpies!

 

[SallyMagoo]

When I was doing my research, I read repeatedly in the reviews that the battery door is cheesy--indeed it is, and maybe Kodak has corrected that by now, but it has held up very well. I bought my now 13 year-old the CX7330 which is 3.1 megapixels and a 37-111mm zoom with 3X Optical zoom for her 12th birthday. She is thrilled with the results she gets and I believe that model was only around $100.

Interesting ... the battery door in my Kodak Easyshare which I have had for about 4 years just broke. I like the camera, but will have to ditch it if the door can't be fixed. Does anyone know if this can be done? I am looking into taking it to a camera shop.

 

[Keitht]

You hit my question on the head. How hard is it to get used to not having a view finder?

Personal opinion is that the lack of a viewfinder makes a camera virtually worthless. Many of the LCD displays are impossible to view in daylight, even without bright sun. Having to hold the camera at arms length, or at least with arms part extended, to view also greatly increases the likelihood of camera shake.