I would like a digital camera for my upcoming birthday, as I love to take pictures. My mom claims that any camera worth having should be at least 5.1 megapixels. I told her I had heard from a 3.1-megapixel user that there is no need to buy any higher than 3.1 mexapixels, and my mom said she had never even heard of one that low. My brother, who is very good with electronics, said that any camera worth having is at least $200-300. I have my eye on the Kodak EasyShare DX7630 (http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-EasyShare-DX7630-Digital-Optical/dp/B0001G6UAM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0787286-8839331?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190923780&sr=1-1) but it is under $200. What do you recommend? I won't be making any prints or anything.
2007-09-27 09:10:59 · 8 answers · asked by †StrongAsDeath† 3 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
You sound like me.....If you love to take pictures then you might want to go ahead and get at least 5mp. You can tell the difference between three and five but not between five and seven. You may also want to consider getting one with video with sound. You never know when the kids will do something cute. If you take a lot of pictures, definitely go with at least a 1gb card so you don't have to worry about room. I had (boo hoo I broke it) canon a530. It was a really good starter camera with enough bells and whistles to keep you occupied for a while. It's 5mp and was 150 a year ago with a free sd card. Kodak is also another good camera.Both of these cameras have optical viewfinders as well as lcd screens so if you break your screen, you can still take pictures.( though it's really hard!) You can get a 6mp for about 150 as well. 200-300 bucks...well once you throw in a battery charger, a hardshell case and maybe an extra sdcard you might get there.
Also if you are a klutz just get the protection plan. They don't cover lcd screens but compusa has a program for camera under 150 in which they just replace it. They are really nice about it too. And price match price match!
Kodak is good but between a 5mp canon and 6mp kodak I would go with the canon. The difference in megapixels is negligible and the canons ( even my a530) has a lot more to offer with what you can really do with the camera and editing on the computer too. Oh and canon cameras come with and adapter to hook up to your tv so you can watch your videos or a slideshow of picutures...it's a/v. Kodak's is propietary and kinda complicated.
2007-09-27 19:32:34 · answer #1 · answered by radcaligirl 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For recreational use, I'd recommend something between 5 and 7 megapixels. More towards the 7 end. That way you can still have pictures that don't look 'digital' when you print them off. Anything more than that would be a waste of money for what you would be using it for.
Kodak has a lot of software and accessories for their cameras. Sony cameras are known to have a longer battery life and quicker response time. With family get-togethers, travel, and such, I favor the longer-lasting battery life of the sony. The last thing I want is to miss out on a good photo op because I had to recharge my camera!
2007-09-27 12:41:50 · answer #2 · answered by larsor4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you aren't going to be printing them or having them sent out for printing then the lower pixel camera should be fine. The higher (5.1mp+) are better if you are going to be printing out pictures larger then 5x7. The higher the pixels the better the resolution of the picture when printed. As for cost, just because the camera costs more doesn't necessarily mean it's better. I bought a canon A540 at the beginning of this year and I got it on sale with a free memory card for less then $200. The one thing I was told when looking for a digital camera is to make sure and get one that also has the viewfinder for taking pictures. The little screen eats up a lot of battery power and is sometimes hard to see in the daylight so having the viewfinder helps a lot with that.
2007-09-27 09:28:03 · answer #3 · answered by Cali_Flwr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in my opinion i might get a used EF 70-200mm F4L for $4 hundred-$500. The seventy 5-300mm is competitively priced (new) yet in my opinion each and every of the variations i've got considered of it produce crappy photographs. per danger there's a extra modern-day version it rather is extra appropriate, even nevertheless it nevertheless won't beat the EF 70-2 hundred F4L. There are some Sigma alternatives interior the 70-200mm variety as properly, yet one is actual undesirable (70-300mm) and the different (70-200mm F2.8) i'm no longer attentive to. My adventure with Sigma is that the same old administration is brutal. in case you get fortunate, you saved 50% of what the equivalent Canon lens fee, yet once you get a dud you have have been given an high priced paperweight.
2016-12-28 05:33:48 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no need ot buy anything higher than a 3.1 who ar ethey kidding? Canon a640 poershot 10 megapixel and with sd 2gb card got it all for $350 tax included takes EXCELLENT pics.
2007-09-27 10:05:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you'll be fine with it. Just take time to read and study the Owner's Manual so you can get the most enjoyment from it.
2007-09-27 09:26:35 · answer #6 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think u can browse some online sites to look for camera accor to ur specifications...recently i came across this site and i found it real cool...
http://www.reviewgist.com/
here u can look for camera according to ur specifications...n also check the ratings of diff cameras and thats real helpful in choosing a camera...
cheers :)
2007-09-28 04:55:28 · answer #7 · answered by sg 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i will choose the nikon coolpix P5000
it's fantastic
2007-09-27 09:28:00 · answer #8 · answered by yave4 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋