Best Point-and-Shoot for ~$200

Status
Not open for further replies.
I too would suggest a used DSLR. I sold my Rebel XS to a couple for $300 and I included two lenses. This camera was in like new condition too. The jump in quality will make it worth every penny, especially if you have younger children.

Also don't be discouraged thinking a DSLR has too much of a learning curve. You can make it difficult if you want but also you can make it every bit as easy as a point and shoot. Also if you decide on upgrading with a SLR, you can just do that upgrade by purchasing a new lens.
smile.gif
 
The SLR recommendations are missing the point - every one knows they have the potential to take much better pictures. But they don't fit in your pocket. If carrying convenience is one of your requirements, then an SLR fails regardless of it's other merits. Different solutions for different problems.

jeff
 
Originally Posted By: greenjp
The SLR recommendations are missing the point - every one knows they have the potential to take much better pictures. But they don't fit in your pocket. If carrying convenience is one of your requirements, then an SLR fails regardless of it's other merits. Different solutions for different problems.

jeff


Then do it like I did, buy a point and shoot with the largest sensor you can afford. I paid $300 for a Fuji F200EXR a few years ago on eBay. 1/1.6" sensor, and with the right setting (6MP instead of 12MP), the dynamic range improvement is very noticeable compare to a 1/2.3" $100-200 camera.

Even a used, older model point and shoot with large sensor would be a good idea. Of course you wouldn't want to go too old and miss out on all the improvement.
 
I was tempted with a refurb 4/3 posted earlier. However, I'm really not interested in getting into interchangeable lenses at this point. I'm leaning towards the Lumix ZS19, or wait for the new LZ20K. I was also tempted by the Nikon L120 or L810, but reviews are mixed. I may even wait for a Black Friday deal - as I don't "have to have a new one right now". Thanks for all your suggestions. I learned a lot.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Personally, I'd pick a camera with a larger image sensor, but those are usually not in the $200 range. IMO $200 camera doesn't have much better image quality than those in the $1-- range.

At 1/2.3", you won't get much more than 8MP quality even if they advertise 14MP, they are just capturing noise, especially at low light condition.

I'll trust dpreview more than consumer report on digital camera. Like others said you probably should either spend more for a micro 4/3 or DSLR, or just pay less for a cheap point and shoot.

32.gif

I agree with PandaBear. The modern point and shoot cameras I've tried shoot multi megapixels of noise! Even in good light, and worse yet in low light. Large files of junk to fill your storage media.

We are still happy with my wife's Nikon D40 - it usually does what we need well. I appreciate the value of a compact camera, but the only ones that seem to take decent photos are the Olympus PEN style, and they put you right back into DSLR prices. Surprise, surprise.
 
I also have a D40 - got it used at a great price.
I hardly think about P/S anymore...

Wifey has a cheap-ish Nikon that she likes for trips, etc...but we don't use it for any 'critical' shots...

Panasonic P/S cameras sometimes have Leica lenses...
 
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
I realize that mo' megapixels won't get me better pictures. Our camera still does decent shots at a short distance, or outdoors. I guess what I would like to gain is a lot better zoom quality. So, maybe a compact/pocket is out? I can't spend $350+ now, or probably ever. The Fuji S4200/4500 look intriguing, but I'm a little worried about using standard AA batteries. This could be a plus -- as you can always carry extras. Our kids are grown (7 & 11), so we aren't taking that many pictures like when they were infants/toddlers.



The problem is that the mega MP cameras with long lenses with tiny openings cant cram enough light on the sensor to get a good, solid shot. Even IS which gets you half a stop or so, isnt enough. If you want real zoom, like 120+mm, you need to be shooting at 1/200s or better, which can be challenging given the DR and size of the sensors.

There is a reason why real cameras that go real long focal length are so big... You arent going to beat physics at
 
I would love to get my hands on Sony RX100 but the price is just a little higher than the $200 budget :) Seriously, this one is being claimed to be game changer as far as prosumer p&s cameras are concerned. Hopefully, eventually the price will come down to somewhat semi-reasonable number and then I will not be able to resist it any more.
 
I've been a photo enthusiast for about 37 years (I'm 47). In the SLR space, I'm a Nikon guy, but nobody can complain about Canon SLRs either.

For point and shoots, boy, there is a lot of garbage out there. The best I've found, *by far* (it's not close) is the Panasonic LX line (LX3, LX5, and the new LX7). The LX3 can be found used for under $200.

The LX line is barely pocketable. I carried one recently on a week-long hike, and was very glad I did.

The LX3 does NOT have much zoom at all. It's about 60mm in the old 35mm equivalent metric. But if I could grab someone by the lapels and shake some sense into them.... "You're not going to get good big zoom shots of your kids soccer game with a point and shoot!" Well, you might get lucky once in a while, but the [censored] autofocus systems on these cameras just don't cut it. I'm sort of a lone evangelist on this... "Learn to go wide, learn composition and exposure, and improve your photography!" Forget about megapixels and zoom... that's just marketing stuff that they use to sell cameras.

But that LX3 has a sweet leica lens that goes down to f/2.0 (the most important spec) that goes to a slightly larger sensor (the next most important spec) and gives great images! The nice metal body and great build quality of the Lumix means that you can buy it used and get a camera with lots of life in it.
 
I ordered up a Nikon Coolpix S9100 from Adorama today. They have refurbs on sale for $105. It consistently gets good (if not favorite) reviews among the pocket super-zooms. PCMag, CNET, and CR all like it. It was less than half the cost of the Panasonic Lumix ZS19 I was considering. It originally retailed for $330. I figured for the price, I couldn't go wrong.

I checked used prices of my existing Canon PowerShot Elph SD1000 on ebay. They are going for $40-+$50. If I sell mine for that, I'm not out much $ in upgrading to the Nikon. If I don't get a decent price, I'll keep it for my kids to play with (or a backup). I always have my Iphone 4S as a backup also (in a pinch).

Thanks again for all your suggestions.
 
We're expecting our third child sometime in the next month, and my wife is after me to get a "good" digital camera.

My eye is on the LX-5, but the LX-7 with that Summilux lens looks nice - but won't be out until the end of the month. Don't know if I have that much time!

Does anyone know if there is any actual difference between the Leica's and the Lumix's, other than cost?
 
For photographing babies, if you have to use flash, I've heard it's better to use indirect flash to not hurt their eyes. If that's true, make sure that whatever camera you get allows you to mount an external flash.
 
The flash concerns me as well.

The LX-7 due out later this month will have the F 1.4 Summilux lens instead of the F 2.0 Summicron on the LX-5, so less to no need for flash, hopefully.

But I don't know if I have that much time - Doc says anytime in the next 21 days ...
 
No need for flash with the Lumix LX line! I *never* use it.

f/2.0 is your friend! ;-) That's 2X more light than f/2.8, and a lot of P&S cameras don't even go that wide...
 
Originally Posted By: Win
We're expecting our third child sometime in the next month, and my wife is after me to get a "good" digital camera.

My eye is on the LX-5, but the LX-7 with that Summilux lens looks nice - but won't be out until the end of the month. Don't know if I have that much time!

Does anyone know if there is any actual difference between the Leica's and the Lumix's, other than cost?


The LX5 is a great camera. It goes to f/2.0 at the wide end. An f/2.8 lens can never do what this one can.

The new LX7 goes to f/1.4 on the wide end! That allows 2X the light that the f/2.0 lens can pass. For those who don't know, f/1.4 is seriously good. I see that the LX7 also has an aperture ring! I have not held one in my hands, but I think a real photographer designed it.

A fast lens gives you at least two advantages. One, of course is, it lets in more light. It helps you get sharp images even in poor light. But the other is that a wide aperture lens can give a more pleasing look to the out of focus parts of an image. This is called bokeh.

Anyway, you can't go wrong with either camera. The LX7 looks amazing on paper.
 
So, to get pictures of kids and babies, the LX5 is going to work just fine. I would not hesitate to buy it. I have the LX3 and my BIL has the LX5. Both cameras are great.

The LX7 looks like a rockstar.
 
DSLR's sounds wonderful.

But you will find yourself missing lots of photo opportunities in life since you don't want to drag it around. We use a $250 Nikon point and shoot 90% of time and if conditions are right great photos. A good smartphone can do a decent job in a pinch. Instagram seems to help turn a bad photo into "art" with good success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

doitmyself
  • Locked
Pocket Point and Shoot Cameras
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
Quattro Pete
Back
Top