Looking at buying a digital camera, but can't decide which one. Would the Canon s230 be a good start.
- Thread starter bob saunders
- Start date
Digital Camera Experts
Camera
Bob: I dont know the Canon but HP has a very nice basic model HP320 that is 2.31 megapix witha 2x optical zoom, great for anything that doesnt require ultra closeups, simple to operate.
Good luck
I will post my link to Punta Cana in a week leaving tomorrow.
Bob: I dont know the Canon but HP has a very nice basic model HP320 that is 2.31 megapix witha 2x optical zoom, great for anything that doesnt require ultra closeups, simple to operate.
Good luck
I will post my link to Punta Cana in a week leaving tomorrow.
I have 2 canon digital cameras and am very happy with both. I had been using Canon ELFs for standard APS photos and liked the small size. I purchased and s330 Digital Elf that is 2.1 Mega Pixel etc. I have had it for a while and am very happy with it, though it was a bit bigger than I would like.
So. . . . .while in LA in December, I bought an s200, which is smaller. Still 2.1 megapixels etc.
Do you plan on doing large size prints from the stills? Mostly for web and email? If large size printing the 3.0 megapixels of the s230 will be worth it.The s230 seems to be virtually the same as my s200 just with 3 megapixel rather than 2.1.
In all the time I have had both cameras, I have never done any printing. I was told for prints up to 5 x 7 2.1 megapixel will be fine. In best resolution settings you get 1600 by 1200, so I am always scaling down and cropping in Photo Shop etc, so for me the 3.0 megapixels isn't necessary.
If you want it for mostly electronic media, get the s200 with extra smart media cards. The cameras come with 8 meg cards. I have a 128 in my s330 and a 256 in my s 200. You can't fit many photos at high res on an 8 meg card.
I'm not an expert, but I hope this helps.
So. . . . .while in LA in December, I bought an s200, which is smaller. Still 2.1 megapixels etc.
Do you plan on doing large size prints from the stills? Mostly for web and email? If large size printing the 3.0 megapixels of the s230 will be worth it.The s230 seems to be virtually the same as my s200 just with 3 megapixel rather than 2.1.
In all the time I have had both cameras, I have never done any printing. I was told for prints up to 5 x 7 2.1 megapixel will be fine. In best resolution settings you get 1600 by 1200, so I am always scaling down and cropping in Photo Shop etc, so for me the 3.0 megapixels isn't necessary.
If you want it for mostly electronic media, get the s200 with extra smart media cards. The cameras come with 8 meg cards. I have a 128 in my s330 and a 256 in my s 200. You can't fit many photos at high res on an 8 meg card.
I'm not an expert, but I hope this helps.
I've used camcorders extensively, including transferring video and "still" shots to computer disk, CD, DVD, and VCR.
I've never owned a digital camera, although I'd like to. Some of what I've learned about DV camcorders should be appropriate, though.
First off, are you sure that you want a digital camera instead of a DV camcorder? You might be pleasantly surprised at the image quality. They can be bought for as little as $350 and have 3 times the image quality of even hi8 camcorders. You can make a "still" shot out of any frame.
For $600 or so DV camcorders come with 1 megapixels, which is 3 times as much as the original ones.
For comparison, the image quality of DVD's is only as good as that of hi8 camcorders - at least in my experience.
Therefore, I don't think that a 2 megapixel camera is worth $250, which approaches the price of a DV camcorder. I have seen them as low as $120 on ecost.com (where I make most of my purchases).
I would either buy a 2 megapixel camera for $120 or I would step up to 3 megapixels. I think that anything over 3 magapixels is a waste. After all, what will you do with it? Won't you computerize it eventually, and wouldn't more pixels chew up a lot more space for barely discernible enhanced quality?
Also, I would make sure that it has a "good" movie-making capability for short bursts. I know that Olympus and Fujifilm (Finepix), in particular, offer this. Be advised though that the video bursts won't be as good in quality, nor certainly as long, as what one gets from a DV camcorder.
One last point which to me is the only one strong enough to decide in favor of the digital camera over the DV camcorder - it should fit in the shirt pocket (no camcorder is small enough) so it can always be available for those unexpected moments when needed the most.
Concerning the last point, if you customarily carry it in your pocket, then your wife, chica, or daughter (yes, a recent poster was worried about what his daughter would think), will have no reason to be suspicious when you take it with you for an "innocent" night out with the boys.
I've never owned a digital camera, although I'd like to. Some of what I've learned about DV camcorders should be appropriate, though.
First off, are you sure that you want a digital camera instead of a DV camcorder? You might be pleasantly surprised at the image quality. They can be bought for as little as $350 and have 3 times the image quality of even hi8 camcorders. You can make a "still" shot out of any frame.
For $600 or so DV camcorders come with 1 megapixels, which is 3 times as much as the original ones.
For comparison, the image quality of DVD's is only as good as that of hi8 camcorders - at least in my experience.
Therefore, I don't think that a 2 megapixel camera is worth $250, which approaches the price of a DV camcorder. I have seen them as low as $120 on ecost.com (where I make most of my purchases).
I would either buy a 2 megapixel camera for $120 or I would step up to 3 megapixels. I think that anything over 3 magapixels is a waste. After all, what will you do with it? Won't you computerize it eventually, and wouldn't more pixels chew up a lot more space for barely discernible enhanced quality?
Also, I would make sure that it has a "good" movie-making capability for short bursts. I know that Olympus and Fujifilm (Finepix), in particular, offer this. Be advised though that the video bursts won't be as good in quality, nor certainly as long, as what one gets from a DV camcorder.
One last point which to me is the only one strong enough to decide in favor of the digital camera over the DV camcorder - it should fit in the shirt pocket (no camcorder is small enough) so it can always be available for those unexpected moments when needed the most.
Concerning the last point, if you customarily carry it in your pocket, then your wife, chica, or daughter (yes, a recent poster was worried about what his daughter would think), will have no reason to be suspicious when you take it with you for an "innocent" night out with the boys.
I have a canon s200 and a s110 and i love them both. My family has owned the s100 as well. Personally I think anything over 2 megapixal is waste but if i got another i would get the s230..
the s200 takes short low res movies which are great for emailing relatives pictures of the kids and fun stuff but not for serious movie making.
get a 128M or 256M card and an extra battery.. both are well worth it.
It is priced well, extremely small and takes great pictures. What more can you ask for?
the s200 takes short low res movies which are great for emailing relatives pictures of the kids and fun stuff but not for serious movie making.
get a 128M or 256M card and an extra battery.. both are well worth it.
It is priced well, extremely small and takes great pictures. What more can you ask for?
Could you tell us a little more sjh?
What is the price range of the s200?
Does the 200 mean 2Mpixels?
What is the maximum res for movie bursts? 65k or so perhaps? or better?
What is the maximum length (either time or frames) for movie bursts?
Will it fit in a shirt pocket?
Does it have a zoom lens?
Thanks.
What is the price range of the s200?
Does the 200 mean 2Mpixels?
What is the maximum res for movie bursts? 65k or so perhaps? or better?
What is the maximum length (either time or frames) for movie bursts?
Will it fit in a shirt pocket?
Does it have a zoom lens?
Thanks.
http://zdnetshopper.cnet.com/shopping/resellers/0-8920578-1411-20431966.html
for pricing and a write up of the cannon 230
for pricing and a write up of the cannon 230
I dont remember all the stats, all this info is best looked up on the web www.amazon.com www.bestbuy.com etc has all the info.
I fits nicely inside a shirt or pants pocket. 2x optical zoom
low res movies last about 30 seconds, medium 15 second, hi res about 5 seconds. Max movie size is about 3.5 megs.
one other note: get a flash card reader (about 20$) and read the files directly from the card. It is faster and easier. dont bother too much with canons software.. while it works, I prefer to use the tools that come with XP
I fits nicely inside a shirt or pants pocket. 2x optical zoom
low res movies last about 30 seconds, medium 15 second, hi res about 5 seconds. Max movie size is about 3.5 megs.
one other note: get a flash card reader (about 20$) and read the files directly from the card. It is faster and easier. dont bother too much with canons software.. while it works, I prefer to use the tools that come with XP
I'm in the market for a new camera and have been researching for about a month. I settled on the Canon S230. As far as I'm concerned, anything higher than 2.1Megapixal is a special purpose camera for enlargements or large prints.
You won't be taking your vacation shots at that resolution as it won't make the photos look notably better and uses 50% more storage (meaning you get fewer photos).
You will not carry this camera in your pocket. It is too heavy. Get the leather belt pouch and wear in on your belt like a pager. You'll never know it is there.
If you want a tiny camera for your pocket, Mustek (?SP) has a 2.1 Megapixal that also is a webcam and does digital video and has a rechargeable battery that is the size of a box of matches and weighs about the same.
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/canon_s100_s230.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini-me2.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini-me2_webcam.jpg">Cool Webcam!
If you don't need all that resolution, there is an even smaller one with all the same features (about US$40), shown below:
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini_me.jpg">
Make no assumptions about photo quality from these pictures, as you don't know how far away I was, how steady my hand was, what resolution was used (they all have variable resolutions), or how dirty the lens might be at the moment. Plus, they were cropped and adjusted for contrast, brightness, and gamma.
The tiny cameras do not take fantastic pictures. They do take decent photos. I don't recommend them for indoor shots, because they don't have a flash and good light makes for good pictures. Great for the keychain or glovebox. Or make the smallest one into a belt center and take photos covertly.
These two pictures below were taken with the tiny $40 camera with no flash. The first is no-retouching, the second is cropped and adjusted.
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini_me_no_flash_no_retouch.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini_me_no_flash_retouch.jpg">
You won't be taking your vacation shots at that resolution as it won't make the photos look notably better and uses 50% more storage (meaning you get fewer photos).
You will not carry this camera in your pocket. It is too heavy. Get the leather belt pouch and wear in on your belt like a pager. You'll never know it is there.
If you want a tiny camera for your pocket, Mustek (?SP) has a 2.1 Megapixal that also is a webcam and does digital video and has a rechargeable battery that is the size of a box of matches and weighs about the same.
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/canon_s100_s230.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini-me2.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini-me2_webcam.jpg">Cool Webcam!
If you don't need all that resolution, there is an even smaller one with all the same features (about US$40), shown below:
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini_me.jpg">
Make no assumptions about photo quality from these pictures, as you don't know how far away I was, how steady my hand was, what resolution was used (they all have variable resolutions), or how dirty the lens might be at the moment. Plus, they were cropped and adjusted for contrast, brightness, and gamma.
The tiny cameras do not take fantastic pictures. They do take decent photos. I don't recommend them for indoor shots, because they don't have a flash and good light makes for good pictures. Great for the keychain or glovebox. Or make the smallest one into a belt center and take photos covertly.
These two pictures below were taken with the tiny $40 camera with no flash. The first is no-retouching, the second is cropped and adjusted.
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini_me_no_flash_no_retouch.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://www.bocachicabeach.net/mini_me_no_flash_retouch.jpg">
Last edited:
I use 2.1 megapixel Kodak DC 215 zoom. It's about 2 years old but it takes great pics. I would prefer a camera with a better zoom capability though. I print 8"x10" pics on my HP 970Cse Professional series printer on kodak premium gloss paper and get excellent results. I sell lots of framed pics! Consider getting a camera that you can readily get a waterproof case for taking underwater pics. Some cameras you can't buy a case for. Like mine! A case would be great for snorkeling in DR or having fun around the resort swim-up bar ... 
go to www.virtualtourist.com/keith&cris to see what I mean, hehehehe.
go to www.virtualtourist.com/keith&cris to see what I mean, hehehehe.A good site for...
reviewing and comparing cameras, etc., is:
http://www.photographyreview.com/reviewscrx.aspx
reviewing and comparing cameras, etc., is:
http://www.photographyreview.com/reviewscrx.aspx
I own the Canon S330 and looking into getting my girlfriend the S230. I love my S330 because it's very small and light but still gives me 2.0 megapixel resolution, 3x optical zoom and 2.5 digital zoon. It also allows you to take video clips with sound. The memory card it comes with is small but I can still get around 30 pictures by lowering the quality of the picture. Even with the low quality setting you're still getting great pictures. The S330 does a have a red eye problem though...I hear it's the same with the S230.
I just have a logitec. It wasn't too expensive and its a web cam also. Has a memory card and the fotos look pretty good. I have a flash but now I wish I spent a little more and got zoom also. But it has video with sound. 20 minutes worth. Not too bad a little camera.
Bob, The Canon you describe is a nice little camera, though I would suggest that you handle one of them before purchase. They are so tiny that I was afraid of losing my grip and dropping it overboard!
The premier website for digital camera information and evaluation is:Digital Photography Review. Click on Gallery at the left side of the home page to see sample photos of dozens of camera models.
The evaluation of the Canon S230 is at: Canon S230 .
I looked long and hard before purchasing my digital camera. I decided to buy only from an established camera company, so limited the choices to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Sony. I really wanted the Canon G2 but didn't wish to spend so much $$. Finally settled on the Sony DSC-S75, a 3.1 megapixel model that serves me well. I shot about 385 photos in the DR last April.
Regardless of which model you buy, heed the words of previous posters and get a couple of large memory cards/sticks. I also have a card reader and brought it with me to the DR; when the memory sticks were full, I simply burned the images onto a CD. Then erased the memory sticks and filled them up again!
Good luck in your decision.
Swede
The premier website for digital camera information and evaluation is:Digital Photography Review. Click on Gallery at the left side of the home page to see sample photos of dozens of camera models.
The evaluation of the Canon S230 is at: Canon S230 .
I looked long and hard before purchasing my digital camera. I decided to buy only from an established camera company, so limited the choices to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Sony. I really wanted the Canon G2 but didn't wish to spend so much $$. Finally settled on the Sony DSC-S75, a 3.1 megapixel model that serves me well. I shot about 385 photos in the DR last April.
Regardless of which model you buy, heed the words of previous posters and get a couple of large memory cards/sticks. I also have a card reader and brought it with me to the DR; when the memory sticks were full, I simply burned the images onto a CD. Then erased the memory sticks and filled them up again!
Good luck in your decision.
Swede
Last edited:
Re: Thanks for the great info guys
The technology is approaching the level where I'll be switching soon. Right now, they just don't make one that for me, is small enough and still delivers high-quality stills. Even then, you must really want the ability to make long videos to justify the high price. You can use today's digital cameras for short videos.
Stills taken from compact digital recorders have resolutions that are not good enough for prints. To get good still resolution, you have to switch to a still mode. This makes sense. A 2GB memory card (2048 Megabytes vs 8-32MB that typically comes with a digital camera) would only hold 45 seconds of video if every frame was high resolution at 30 frames per second. Or with compression, maybe 5 minutes of video. A 2GB compact flash card will run you $1600.
Even if what I wanted was available, have you ever tried working with that much data? Computers and transfer rates are still too slow and you're talking about pushing the limits of even the newest and fastest components and in my experience, that's a formula for locking up your system, software crashes, and wait-wait-wait. It would take an hour to transfer a couple hours worth of digital video to your hard drive.
Finally, with the exception of a few water skiing analysis videos, my 8mm camcorder sits in drawer and never gets used. Watching home videos is about as popular as watching home slide shows of the past - they are a good way to lose friends!
The technology coming is exciting. Watch for the coming DITIGAL MIRROR. A unit the size of a cell phone picks up your digital video image, live, and projects a big screen TV sized image wherever you want. Maybe the ceiling above the bed?
I know guys that already use the little cord that comes with their digital cameras together with their laptops to make little home movies.
They plug their digital camera into the TV in their hotel room, set the camera on top of the TV, point and zoom as desired, and they let the fun begin as they make their own movie. Even low cost digital cameras that don't have video capability can do this.
If they happen to have one of those hi-8 video watchmans for watching movies on airplanes (these are full-featured VCR's that have built-in 3-5" LCD screens and use 8mm or hi-8 tapes and run on batteries), or their laptop, they can also record the video and later cut a VHS tape or a DVD (or just grab special frames to get cheap stills).
I read an article about how a working girl in Indonesia complained about a tourist that did something like this but did not disclose it to his partner. The girl discovered his lilttle hookup and had the local police arrest him. Since he had a computer, Newspapers announced "International Child Pornography Internet Ring Leader captured - the result of an intense investigation and operation in cooperation with local, national, and international agencies". What's a fall guy to do? This is reminiscent of some of the headlines I've read in the Dominican Republic after a Boca Chica "raid".
andy a said:
The technology is approaching the level where I'll be switching soon. Right now, they just don't make one that for me, is small enough and still delivers high-quality stills. Even then, you must really want the ability to make long videos to justify the high price. You can use today's digital cameras for short videos.
Stills taken from compact digital recorders have resolutions that are not good enough for prints. To get good still resolution, you have to switch to a still mode. This makes sense. A 2GB memory card (2048 Megabytes vs 8-32MB that typically comes with a digital camera) would only hold 45 seconds of video if every frame was high resolution at 30 frames per second. Or with compression, maybe 5 minutes of video. A 2GB compact flash card will run you $1600.
Even if what I wanted was available, have you ever tried working with that much data? Computers and transfer rates are still too slow and you're talking about pushing the limits of even the newest and fastest components and in my experience, that's a formula for locking up your system, software crashes, and wait-wait-wait. It would take an hour to transfer a couple hours worth of digital video to your hard drive.
Finally, with the exception of a few water skiing analysis videos, my 8mm camcorder sits in drawer and never gets used. Watching home videos is about as popular as watching home slide shows of the past - they are a good way to lose friends!
The technology coming is exciting. Watch for the coming DITIGAL MIRROR. A unit the size of a cell phone picks up your digital video image, live, and projects a big screen TV sized image wherever you want. Maybe the ceiling above the bed?
I know guys that already use the little cord that comes with their digital cameras together with their laptops to make little home movies.
They plug their digital camera into the TV in their hotel room, set the camera on top of the TV, point and zoom as desired, and they let the fun begin as they make their own movie. Even low cost digital cameras that don't have video capability can do this.
If they happen to have one of those hi-8 video watchmans for watching movies on airplanes (these are full-featured VCR's that have built-in 3-5" LCD screens and use 8mm or hi-8 tapes and run on batteries), or their laptop, they can also record the video and later cut a VHS tape or a DVD (or just grab special frames to get cheap stills).
I read an article about how a working girl in Indonesia complained about a tourist that did something like this but did not disclose it to his partner. The girl discovered his lilttle hookup and had the local police arrest him. Since he had a computer, Newspapers announced "International Child Pornography Internet Ring Leader captured - the result of an intense investigation and operation in cooperation with local, national, and international agencies". What's a fall guy to do? This is reminiscent of some of the headlines I've read in the Dominican Republic after a Boca Chica "raid".
Jan said:
Note: Never zoom when you have an option to move closer to your subject. One feature of the higher resolution cameras is that they allow you to "zoom" after the fact and still maintain enough resolution for good prints.
Digital photography has made it possible to spend much less time on framing your subject and getting the lighting just right, as that can be done with software after the fact, letting you spend more time on composition. The best photographers will tell you it takes 10 or more shots to arrive at 1 great shot, you can take lots and lots of photos without the cost of film. Just throw away the ones you don't use.
I find people that initially are shy about having their photo taken, when shown the one you just took, will insist on a retake or 2 or 3 and end up actually posing cooperatively.