Reply to: Decent camera for less than £50

[Ignis Fatuus]

Not when you're comparing a phone with digital-only zoom against a cheap camera with basical optical.

Agree on pixels though, for basic holiday snaps you don't want to print/enlarge.

We may be agreeing here.

1. Digital zoom adds nothing. Optical (i.e. real) zoom does something. However it comes at a cost so don't be greedy about how much of it you want.
2. More megapixels is not better. After a certain number of Mp for a given sensor size, more is worse. By about 7 Mp on a tiny sensor (1/2.3", say a pocket camera), or by about 10 Mp on a small sensor (1/1.7", say a compact but non-pocket camera) you have reached the limit.

You can print bigger than snapshot size with any camera, and do remember that in most Real Life a bigger print will be viewed from a greater distance, so it works with fewer dpi.
8Mp will print to A4 at 300dpi (that's a classic "good enough for anything" print resolution).
It will print to about A3 at 200dpi, and that's really plenty good enough for a print you're going to put on the wall.

So just say "no" to 14Mp in a pocket camera. It's a load of cojones, or whatever you call them.

[d000hg]

BTW just a personal rant: most of the things about a camera that can be expressed with a simple number will tell you nothing worthwhile about the camera. Megapixels lead that charge. Zoom factor follows, especially so-called digital zoom.

Not when you're comparing a phone with digital-only zoom against a cheap camera with basical optical.

Agree on pixels though, for basic holiday snaps you don't want to print/enlarge.

[Ignis Fatuus]

BTW just a personal rant: most of the things about a camera that can be expressed with a simple number will tell you nothing worthwhile about the camera. Megapixels lead that charge. Zoom factor follows, especially so-called digital zoom. Highest ISO speed is another one (the question is not what is the highest ISO setting, but what is the highest setting that gives acceptable results in any given situation).

There is no easy figure that will tell you about image quality, far less usability or enjoyability.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Surely it just depends on your own definition of 'decent'? I was always happy with the pictures I took with my 5mp camera.
Why would you need an SLR if for example, your just taking pictures of someone in a bedroom

Actually 5Mp is about the sweet spot for tiny sensors such as used in many pocket point-and-shoot cameras. Levering more megapixels out of the same sensor gives more noise because each sensor is smaller. But many pocket point-and-shoots give fine results nowadays. It's getting back to the way it was in film days, when your (decent) pocket 35mm camera gave image quality almost as good as your SLR, it just wasn't as flexible.

Yes it does depend on your definition of decent. But try googling for example, Canon s95, and you'll find a huge level of satisfaction with it, from people who are demanding about image quality and who also use much bigger and more expensive cameras. That camera fits in your pocket, but alas does not cost under £50.

Personally I recently bought a Canon Ixus 220HS for £109, and have been really impressed with it (I already have a slew of cameras but had no recent decent pocket go-everywhere camera).

It's the budget that is limiting here, not the idea of a pocket camera.

[d000hg]

Anything in the £50 bracket will be no better than a half decent phones camera

You can get 3X optical zoom and 12Mp for £50. That's top-end phone stuff... optical zoom especially, which is the big differentiation between cameras and even cheap phones surely?

[Spacecadet]

That's just one step above any hole is a goal lol!!

Even glory holes?

[The Spartan]

Any bird will do.

That's just one step above any hole is a goal lol!!

[doodab]

Surely it just depends on your own definition of 'decent'? I was always happy with the pictures I took with my 5mp camera.
Why would you need an SLR if for example, your just taking pictures of someone in a bedroom

A larger sensor & better lens will give you better images. Above a certain point increasing numbers of pixels aren't particularly important unless you intend to make large high quality prints.

In a bedroom you ideally want a sensor that gives good high ISO performance, a brighter lens and image stabilisation. You won't get much for £50 but for £100 you can get something that should give noticeably better results than a phone. This looks alright although personally I would increase my budget a bit more.

[SimonMac]

Anything in the £50 bracket will be no better than a half decent phones camera

[Graham]

Not poss IMO for under £50.
If you want a decent camera - get an SLR. Point & shoot is a false economy as pics are poor.

Spending £50 and hoping to get a decent camera is a false economy. If you spend £500 on a camera (whether it is DSLR or point and shoot), then it should be pretty decent.

Surely it just depends on your own definition of 'decent'? I was always happy with the pictures I took with my 5mp camera.
Why would you need an SLR if for example, your just taking pictures of someone in a bedroom

[Ignis Fatuus]

Based on my 2 second experience of Kodak EasyShare C1530 Digital Still Camera - Black 3.0: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics and the reviews of it online its definitely a false economy.

The chief issue with cheap cameras is pixellation. Chances are unless you hit very luck your phone will give you a better picture.

No, the chief issue with cheap cameras is noise. They have crammed too many megapixels into too small a sensor, giving too much noise especially at anything higher than the lowest ISO.

That issue is shared by more expensive cameras with the same Mp and sensor size, though it can be improved (quite a lot these days) with sensor technology and image processing (most compact cameras do a load of that now).

Another issue is simply lens quality. Good compacts have better lenses, and the difference shows, but they do cost more.

If image quality is more important than size, then a cheaper DSLR will thrash any compact, in more difficult situations. OTOH I am staggered by the quality of some modern compacts in a decent light.

I don't think you can do a good camera for less than 50 new. You can do OK for not much more than 100 (get a previous model), and really pretty good for 200-300.

[TimberWolf]

I bought a Fujifilm FinePix AX250 : Fujifilm FinePix AX250 Digital Camera - Black 2.7 inch: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics

E.g. of photo (much reduced in size) posted on here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...e-picture.html

It's in low light settings you're most likely to run into problems with cheap cameras and optics, but mine seems to work okay.

[eek]

Based on my 2 second experience of Kodak EasyShare C1530 Digital Still Camera - Black 3.0: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics and the reviews of it online its definitely a false economy.

The chief issue with cheap cameras is pixellation. Chances are unless you hit very luck your phone will give you a better picture.

[TheFaQQer]

Point & shoot is a false economy as pics are poor.

Rubbish - expensive point and shoot

Spending £50 and hoping to get a decent camera is a false economy. If you spend £500 on a camera (whether it is DSLR or point and shoot), then it should be pretty decent.

[saptastic]

Is it possible to buy a new decent (internet quality) digital camera for less than £50? Any recommendations?


And would you buy second hand from Amazon? (I'm not on ebay, should I?)

Not poss IMO for under £50.
If you want a decent camera - get an SLR. Point & shoot is a false economy as pics are poor.
You can get very good deals second hand - on ebay or got to a camera store such as Jacobs for second hand deals.