It's not the cheapest, but I've been using a Canon S95 for a little while now and I like it a lot.
Low light
Daytime
ETA: Now that I really look at it, I might have messed with that picture of my closet - doesn't look like a shot straight off the camera, so maybe not such a good example...
Land sakes alive, the steak's alive.
This message has been edited by Dr.Zhivago on Jun 20, 2011 2:46 PM
I don't always use a fancy shmancy camera (but when I do...). It can be a pain dragging around a camera that big sometimes, so I also have a P&S for when I want something pocketable. Also, my DSLR doesn't shoot video.
I'm also a fan of Canon, but I'd go with something like the SD1300, or the A2200. They're not going to have the low light performance of the S95, but they both have excellent lenses.
The SD1300 has a little nicer screen and is a tad smaller, but the A2200 shoots 720p HD video.
I like this bad boy. The settings are a little advanced, so the learning curve is steep and a little frustrating. But with a little experimentation and patience, you'll get the hang of it.
Canon's are usually rated in the top 10 of point-and-shoots so you can't go wrong with one of those but I'd stay away from Nikon's right now - and that's coming from a Nikon girl.
The Panasonic Lumix line has been getting great ratings for a couple of years now and I saw the results of a shot recently that I thought for sure would turn out totally crappy and was surprised how good it was (from a friend's Panasonic camera.) They're affordable and streamlined.
thank for all the suggestions but here's my problem. I cant read/comprehend what you're talking about, you all sound like Charlie Brown's teacher.
I'd like a point and shoot under $100. I'd like the screen to be larger and I never want to change a setting. I'd also like a quick response time between "Say Cheese!" and actually pic taking.
Most times, the delay between when you push the 'take picture' button and when the actual picture gets taken is from the auto-focusing figuring out what's going on. You can avoid the delay by pressing the 'take picture' button down half-way, letting it set the focus and then when you want to take the picture, press down the rest of the way. That should the majority of the lag time.
"I'd also like a quick response time between "Say Cheese!" and actually pic taking"
Yes! me too! This is my biggest annoyance at my current camera. I push the button and it does a few gyrations before actually taking the picture and often ruins what I was trying for in the first place.
I've tried that 1/2 way push down method and it does work Doc Z, but it isn't helpful if I want to get a really quick shot because it is still a 2-step method.
Well, you have two choices. Set your camera to manual focus and take your chances or press down half-way and let the autofocus do it's thing before you press the rest of the way.
If you're using a point-and-shoot you're not going to have a camera as fast as an SLR - it's a simple case of technology and that technology has to have time to work. And you're never going to get a super fast shutter speed on a cheap model. And if you do choose something faster and cheaper your going to have lower quality photos.
You can possibly make it a little faster by making sure the red eye reduction is turned off and the auto-flash. But then you have to know how to turn the flash back on quickly if you need to.
It was my first camera, and I've taken lots of nice pictures with it. I haven't used it in a long long time, and it would be nice if someone else got to use it. I have a battery charger for it and an SD card too of course. Let me know.
Well, unless you want to set your f-stop (aperture) super high (very narrow aperture) and put your camera on manual focus set for infinity. That's really the only way I can think of to avoid having to worry about focusing, which is the part that takes a little time.
The other night, my dog was doing something (I thought) was really cute so I grab camera, try to click, and it does nothing for like 2-3 seconds, an eternity in dog time. What I captured was the end of her tail and my man's foot. Not quite the image I had in mind. Argh.
Well, a bunch of people here tried to help you, especially Doc Z and all you could offer up was snark and obtuse idiocy. Are you really too stupid to comprehend the timeless aphorism, "you get what you pay for"?
The help that was offered was very clear and understandable. But you acted like we were speaking Greek. You do that shit all the time. It's intentional and you know it.
Sure, you offered a thank you and then 2 seconds later gave Doc Z static for "defending" cameras, when all he was trying to do was to help you understand how they work.
Quite frankly, you remind me of Koool; playing dumb, just to get a rise out of people.
Fair enough. I used to find Koool mildly amusing, because he ruffled the feathers of the overly sensitive. But I've just never seen anything to suggest that it's not a shtick.
I am friends with him on Facebook and we have also communicated in FB PM (hope you don't mind I shared that Koool). He is consistently the same. And a really nice guy too.
You're probably right. I just find it improbable that a grown man, who can navigate the internet, use facebook, follow technical directions to make youtube videos work here (when others couldn't) and who is also gainfully employed, has such a poor command of the English language.
Honestly, Hunkyman and JT were complete knuckle draggers, but the way Koool writes makes them look like Rhodes Scholars.
For what it's worth, if my brother ever started posting here (which he never would in a million years), his posts would only vaguely resemble proper English. I doubt I've seen him make it through anything but the most rudimentary of sentences without messing something up. Usually it's a lot of things. He's a crew chief on a DOT highway crew and is pretty successful by most standards; owns his own condo and two cars. He just can't write (or read, actually) - and I suspect the same might be true with Koool.
C/P
Remember cameras that would have to focus themselves before taking a snapshot? And how that could lose vital seconds, making a mockery of the term "point and shoot"?
Oh, right -- that would describe every digital camera currently on the market. But if one Silicon Valley start-up has its way, the very idea of focusing, or adjusting light levels, or having to wait before you click the shutter, will be a relic of the early 21st century -- along, perhaps, with photos that only exist in two dimensions.
Steve at Steve's Digicams Reviews liked it and that's good enough. Plus it's less than $80. Just put it in auto mode, point and fire. Easy and done. If you ask anymore questions, I'm going to shake a baby.
![[linked image]](http://chicotrading.com/images/Dispasable%20Cameras/CAM-6889.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.nycupcake.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/le-clic-disc-film-camera-purple-150x150.jpg)
