Digital Cameras....Advice please.

[DeadPoolX 9]

As I said, I tend to favor AA Lithium batteries since I can easily go two weeks on just two of them without changing them out. Would it be very difficult to charge the camera if I needed to do so? No, probably not. However, it would be a slight annoyance.

I know I have to charge my cell phone (which, admittedly, holds a charge fantastically well -- it can go just as long as my digital camera without recharging amazingly enough) and I need to charge up my PSP, which unlike my cell phone, seems to run dry much quicker. To be fair, the PSP does a little more than my cell, so perhaps the battery gets worn down faster. Regardless, it's still a nuisance.

My main experience of rechargeable batteries and cameras aren't with digital cameras. It's with the camcorders my Dad used when I was a kid. I realize this probably isn't a very fair assessment, since technology has improved dramatically (he was using analog Hi8, which was considered "high tech" at the time) but the battery packs usually ran dry unbelievably quickly. A 10-hour battery, for instance, would last two hours, if we were lucky -- and that assumes we didn't use any "special effects" on the video as well, since that'd drain the battery quicker. Once again, I know that using camcorders from the 1980s/1990s is not a fair reference point for digital cameras in 2008, but it's still what I remember.

The one bad point I neglected to mention before about AA batteries of any type is that you shouldn't leave them in your camera (or any electronic device) for extended periods of time if you're not using it. If the batteries run out of juice and eventually discharge, the battery acid that could end up leaking from the batteries would destroy the device, rendering it inoperable. Fortunately, this is a relatively infrequent occurrence, but it can -- and does -- happen if you leave batteries in an electronic device for a long time.

For clarification, by "long time" I don't mean a few weeks or even a few months. The batteries should be okay if that happens. If you left them in for years at a time, then you might need to be concerned. It's really common sense if you've ever used anything with batteries and I think most of us have -- especially if we've either played with toys as a child or have children of our own (since just about every toy seems to require batteries, none of which are ever included).

[~Laura and Nick~ 5]

yours takes 4 batteries? this camera only uses 2.

no, mine takes 2 batteries but I go through 4 in a 24 hour period.

I think she means she only has to change batteries once during a 24 hour period, silly

Exactly Marilyn

The 4 batteries last me a good day, then I just charge all 4 in my charger and start all over again.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

The one bad point I neglected to mention before about AA batteries of any type is that you shouldn't leave them in your camera (or any electronic device) for extended periods of time if you're not using it. If the batteries run out of juice and eventually discharge, the battery acid that could end up leaking from the batteries would destroy the device, rendering it inoperable. Fortunately, this is a relatively infrequent occurrence, but it can -- and does -- happen if you leave batteries in an electronic device for a long time.

had that problem with ordinary batteries, never with rechargeables.

[sereia 0]

I'm looking at a decent digital camera to take some personal pictures. I dont' think I need more then 7 pixels. Don't need a lot of bells and whistles either. I would like it to be small enough to fit in my purse or even pants pocket from time to time. Something easy to use. Something that takes decent enough pictures for me to print out 4 x6 prints and scrap them in my books. No more then $250. Under $200 would be even better.

Battery life is always of concern as well.

I'm currently looking at the Canon Powershot 7.1 Digital ELPH camera model SD-750.

Anyone bought a decent camera lately that they are absolutely thrilled with? Give me details, please.

I haven't read any of the other replies.. so I apologize but here's my opinion! After careful research and consideration I ended up with the Canon Powershot SD800 IS Digital ELPH... and I am thrilled with how my photos turn out and the ease of the camera. I think whatever Canon you choose, you will be happy with!

My two cents

[Scott & Lai 12]

I think most smaller cameras dont use AA batteries, because they take up a lot of space. That's why smaller ones are all on lithium batteries.

Not sure what all the complaining is about. Just like Maviwaro said, I can get 200+ pics on one charge with no problem... on my Canon, not sure on other brands.

It fully charges in like 2 hrs, so no inconvenience, and no additional cost to keep buying batteries.

I use AA batteries in my Canon S5 IS. I found that rechargeables in my first digicam didn't last long enough, certainly not as much as 200 pics on a charge. When I'm on a trip, even 200 pics can be too few per charge... I can easily take that many in a day.

[Forever Young 1]

JG,

I know I'm late (what else is new... )? But I have a Canon Powershot A630 and it is awesome!! I stink at taking pics and this wonderful device has turned me into the new and improved Annie Lebowitz!

Happy shopping!

Gill

Edited May 1, 2008 by Deyoungting

[Marilyn. 340]

I didn't want to start a whole new thread so I figured I would borrow this one...

I just saw a really good deal for a digital camera at Walgreens... it is a Kodak easyshare C913.. they are selling it for about 80 bucks and they are also selling a 2gb memory card for 10 bucks...

do you guys know if this is a good camera? I have been reading a few reviews and the only compalint most people have is that it eats through batteries.. I would probably buy rechargable batteries...

this sale is only from 7am to 2pm on Friday.... luckily Walgreen is only aournd the corner from our house.. if I am getting the camera I plan to go early...

[Nessa 23]

we have a Canon SuperCheap and I'm pretty happy with it.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Something to remember is: don't be fooled by the megapixel and overall zoom rating.

Megapixels do not equal image quality. Camera manufacturers want consumers to believe that, but truth be told, it's not the same. Image quality depends on the sensor within the camera. Larger and more technically advanced cameras (such as prosumer and professional models) offer a much better sensor than the point-and-shoot models that fit easily into your shirt pocket. Megapixels relate to how large the dimensions of a photograph can be before losing image quality. Most people don't need to print exceptionally large photographs so anything from 5MP and up would be just fine for day-to-day usage.

As for the zoom rating, be wary of that. Optical and digital zoom are two completely different things. Optical zoom is the camera's actual ability to zoom in on an object. Typically this will be lower than the digital zoom rating to keep the camera's size and weight lower. If a camera has a large optical zoom, it'll need a larger lens, which means the entire body must be larger to accommodate it. Digital zoom is not a real zoom at all. It takes the picture and artificially enlarges it. This ends up drastically lowering the image quality of your pictures, so I'd recommend turning it off right away. Most camera companies will project a zoom capability that the camera isn't technically capable of achieving. They'll combine both the optical and digital zoom ratings together and then advertise that, so their cameras seem "better than the competition." They also know most consumers won't realize what's happening and think, "Well it has a greater zoom rating, so it must be better!"

I'd also suggest getting the camera that is right for you -- not what different magazines say. Yes, an SLR can take pictures that are far better than your average point-and-click model. However, an SLR can be large and bulky even without the addition of separate lenses it'll require. A point-and-click or prosumer model are often much easier to carry and pack for trips. So if you're looking to some serious professional photography, get an SLR; if you want to take pictures of your family while on a vacation, get a point-and-click. It'll be plenty.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

Something to remember is: don't be fooled by the megapixel and overall zoom rating.

Megapixels do not equal image quality. Camera manufacturers want consumers to believe that, but truth be told, it's not the same. Image quality depends on the sensor within the camera. Larger and more technically advanced cameras (such as prosumer and professional models) offer a much better sensor than the point-and-shoot models that fit easily into your shirt pocket. Megapixels relate to how large the dimensions of a photograph can be before losing image quality. Most people don't need to print exceptionally large photographs so anything from 5MP and up would be just fine for day-to-day usage.

As for the zoom rating, be wary of that. Optical and digital zoom are two completely different things. Optical zoom is the camera's actual ability to zoom in on an object. Typically this will be lower than the digital zoom rating to keep the camera's size and weight lower. If a camera has a large optical zoom, it'll need a larger lens, which means the entire body must be larger to accommodate it. Digital zoom is not a real zoom at all. It takes the picture and artificially enlarges it. This ends up drastically lowering the image quality of your pictures, so I'd recommend turning it off right away. Most camera companies will project a zoom capability that the camera isn't technically capable of achieving. They'll combine both the optical and digital zoom ratings together and then advertise that, so their cameras seem "better than the competition." They also know most consumers won't realize what's happening and think, "Well it has a greater zoom rating, so it must be better!"

I'd also suggest getting the camera that is right for you -- not what different magazines say. Yes, an SLR can take pictures that are far better than your average point-and-click model. However, an SLR can be large and bulky even without the addition of separate lenses it'll require. A point-and-click or prosumer model are often much easier to carry and pack for trips. So if you're looking to some serious professional photography, get an SLR; if you want to take pictures of your family while on a vacation, get a point-and-click. It'll be plenty.

good summary

[Jasman0717 9]

I bought an 8 Megapixel SLR but it really doesn't do any better than the 4 Megapixel camera I had before with one exception. The SLR at max settings takes a 25 megabyte picture as opposed to the 1 meg the old camera too. I have an 8 gig card and can store about 150 pictures on it. I haven't figured out how to change the settings and keep high resolution pictures. Maybe this was way over my head

Edited November 27, 2008 by jasman0717

[natty bumppo 297]

Advice ...

download and delete your personal porn pics off the camera before taking the camera out of the house

[Nagishkaw 510]

Advice ...

download and delete your personal porn pics off the camera before taking the camera out of the house

Excellent Advice!

[Cdnwmn 0]

Kodak Easyshare M1033 (10 MP) and in pink too....lol. It takes the lithium battery. I didn't want to have to deal with the regular batteries. I also have a Kodak Easyshare Z660 (6.1 MP), takes the lithium battery. Love both cameras.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I bought an 8 Megapixel SLR but it really doesn't do any better than the 4 Megapixel camera I had before with one exception. The SLR at max settings takes a 25 megabyte picture as opposed to the 1 meg the old camera too. I have an 8 gig card and can store about 150 pictures on it. I haven't figured out how to change the settings and keep high resolution pictures. Maybe this was way over my head

SLR digital cameras generally have more options and features, if not more versatility. However, using them can take a lot more practice and skill than a point-and-click or prosumer model. The reason you probably think 8MP doesn't do any better than 4MP is because of the type of photos you're taking.

If you're shooting pictures and put them on your computer or online, you'll notice very little difference -- if any at all. Monitors can only display a resolution of up to 72dpi, whereas print work requires at least 300dpi or more, depending on the overall size needed. This is where an SLR (and other cameras with greater megapixel capabilities) are useful. An SLR is much, much better for professional photography which requires printing the photos in a magazine or making banners, among other uses. If you try that with a 4MP camera, you can still get good pictures, but they won't be right for much larger image requirements and probably wouldn't be the best choice if working for National Geographic.

For new camera users and those who want a simpler process in taking pictures, I'd highly recommend a point-and-shoot camera. Even prosumer models can be quite complicated and if you're not going to use most of the features, you might as well save yourself some money.