My 5-year old Kodak is getting flaky, so as a small contribution to economic stimulus, I am looking to replace it with one the compact point and shoot models. I want something that will fit in one of the pockets of my cycling jerseys. Cost up to $300 is OK.

Two people who are pretty serious photogs recommended Canon. I have heard that they all take fine pics in daylight, but are not very good indoors at night without flash.

Ok, I'm all ears . . . .

- Marty

 

I recently had to replace our point and shoot Nikon. Because I wanted to use the same battery and SDHC cards I choose the Nikon S570 as a replacement for a recent trip to Europe. For a compact point and shoot I could not have been happier. With a 4 GB SDHC card it is good for 1,000 photos at 12 Megapixels. A clean 4 GB SDHC card is good for 30 minutes of video which can be up loaded as a windows media file and compressed to a much smaller file to be E-Mailed of up loaded to Youtube.com.

In retrospect: I like the fact that this camera does video (which was cool). But, for serious photography I really wish that I had purchased a digital SLR. But in the end, this Nikon S570 did an admirable job given it's size.

 

the CCD's have gotten good enough that they really aren't critical anymore.
it's all in the optics.
hence a DLSR will always do better.
it is awfully convenient to have a credible little camera in your pocket though.

 

I love my new Canon camera, but it is bulky. At times, I still grab my older Olympus that fits in my purse or a jacket pocket.

The Olympus has served me well, but if I had $ to burn, I'd buy another pocket sized digital to have on hand too.

I bought my granddaughter a Nikon Cool pix last year. It was only around $129.00 but it does take decent pics. For a few bucks more, I'm sure there is a small digital out there that will do even better with perhaps some extra features.

 

We have a Canon SD1200IS for a small point & shoot that fits in a pocket. Went with this one because it had a view finder besides just the screen on the back. I have hard time with glare using the screen and find the view finder very helpful. We have larger cameras but take this one on most trips. We've been happy with it.

 

I have been very pleased with my $200 Sony Cyber-shot W-80 that I bought last year for a pocket camera.

 

I prefer taking pics with the viewfinder. My Olympus has one, many of the small digital cameras don't.

 

Kim Komando who writes tech for the USA Today just did an article titled "Finding a Quality Camera for Unders $300". Her results, in no particular order, were:

Panasonic Lumix ZE1 ($280)
Canon PwerShot SX120 IS ($250)
Samsung TL220 ($300)
Sony Cyber-shot H20 ($280)

You might be able to find the whole article online.

 

I will not buy a camera without a viewfinder. Unfortunately most cameras don't have them anymore because they add to the cost.

I use a Canon G10 which is an advance camera with wide angle zoom and capable of full manual controls and still small enough to fit in a pocket. Not cheap.

 

Thanks to all those who offered advice and experience.

I purchased a Canon SD940-IS with an 8GB high-speed SDHC card. It is a very solid unit with a metal case. The big draw was its credit card size. The downside is that the 4x zoom version does not have an optical viewfinder, only on the older 3x version. However, they enlarged the screen and it works very well, even in bright light, so I'll see how I like it after more use.

Funny thing is that I had to use my old Kodak to take a picture of the new Canon!



I took this shot out on a MTB ride yesterday. I am using the 5 MP setting ( it is capable of 12 MP), and I was amazed with the focus accuracy, detail, contrast and color rendition. Click on the photo to bring it to full resolution and you will be able to see the individual pixels on my Garmin's display.



- Marty