i get a new camera so help meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
 Jul 12 2007, 08:57 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
xkcd always  Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059  |
Specifics:
- Around $250, DEFINITELY under $300 - Around 7.2 mp - REALLY slim I was thinking about the Canon SD1000 cause it's just a good camera in general but I really really like the slimness of the Casio EX-S770:   But I heard the Casio takes bad pictures and is blurry most of the time. So, what's a good camera? If I plan to get a Canon, I'm aiming towards the Canon S and SD series. Anything good that takes nice pics, won't break easily, and is slim will be good. Recommend! |
|
|
|
 |
Replies
(1 - 24)
|
Jul 12 2007, 08:58 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 people are wrong. women ARE objects. Group: Member Posts: 189 Joined: Jun 2007 Member No: 540,281 |
why under 250? you have 50 dollars you're saving for what?
Don't get caught up on the megapixels. Canon has a great array of functions for the money and I'd overlook the casios megapixel crap because casios are made like trash anyways hey i say that you get a canon sd1000 best bang for buck and use the left over money at the petting zoo |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2007, 09:07 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
TRIPPIN i like the petting zoo thxxxxxxxxx
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2007, 09:13 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
people are wrong. women ARE objects. Group: Member Posts: 189 Joined: Jun 2007 Member No: 540,281 |
casios are cheap and for people who like blurry pictres
thanks dont argue with me check sig |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2007, 09:21 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
My sig isn't interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2007, 09:25 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 Home is where your rump rests! Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,235 Joined: Aug 2006 Member No: 451,969 |
Do you mind if I ask why 7.2 MP? Unless you plan on using it to print huge, huge pictures, I don't see why. :/
The Kodak V803 looks rather nifty. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2007, 11:13 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
people are wrong. women ARE objects. Group: Member Posts: 189 Joined: Jun 2007 Member No: 540,281 |
best friend has a v1000 or whatever th3 black kodak and hates it so much he'd give it to me if i asked
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2007, 11:52 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
KODAK SUCKS
QUOTE(HakunaMatata @ Jul 12 2007, 07:25 PM)  Do you mind if I ask why 7.2 MP? Unless you plan on using it to print huge, huge pictures, I don't see why. :/ The Kodak V803 looks rather nifty. No reason really, I just like to get the most out of crisp clear pics. I have a 4 mp camera and the pictures look kind of bland. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 12:21 AM
Post
#9
|
|
 cheeeesy like theres no tomorrow Group: Member Posts: 3,316 Joined: Aug 2004 Member No: 37,142 |
those are both good. but slimmer is exilim and i loved mine until i upgraded. but the edges to that canon i can imagine being chipped away.
i like exilim better. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 12:40 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
QUOTE(pandamonium @ Jul 12 2007, 10:21 PM) those are both good. but slimmer is exilim and i loved mine until i upgraded. but the edges to that canon i can imagine being chipped away. i like exilim better. Was it blurry when you took pics? How did it adjust to the dark? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 01:06 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
cheeeesy like theres no tomorrow Group: Member Posts: 3,316 Joined: Aug 2004 Member No: 37,142 |
it was my first digital when i had my exilim. it was only 2mps and it wasnt that great. my friend has a 5 mp and she loved it. but her lens broke when her friend pressed it in.
the pictures werent blurry when she took them. but if you wanna see how much the lag time is in taking the pictures go look online like bestbuy.com . it depends on the focus light. if you are taking pictures in the night the camera usually sends a light to focus in on the subject(s). usually there is a night time setting with cameras. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 01:40 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
2 MP? Wow that's like...a phone camera.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 01:44 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Member Posts: 3 Joined: Jul 2007 Member No: 545,182 |
My cellphone has a 2 mexapixel camera and it transforms
and takes great pics |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 01:49 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
Go away or I'll transform you into a ho.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 01:54 AM
Post
#15
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,529 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 523,843 |
 It also has a large palate range of colours. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2007, 01:56 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Member Posts: 3 Joined: Jul 2007 Member No: 545,182 |
 THEN YOU CAN MEET THE AUTOBOTS |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2007, 12:13 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
QUOTE(fire @ Jul 12 2007, 11:54 PM) It also has a large palate range of colours. WOWOWOW HOOK ME UP |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2007, 12:23 AM
Post
#18
|
|
 Photoartist Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 12,363 Joined: Apr 2006 Member No: 399,390 |
Don't get caught up on the megapixels.
|
|
|
|
| *MyMichelle* |
Jul 14 2007, 12:26 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Guest |
GET THE CANON!
I used to have a Casio 5.0 mp, and it was worse than my 3.2 mp Canon (me, completely ignoring what Arjuna just said, haha) but seriously. Canon's cameras are great. Worth the money. Have way more fun color functions than most. :] |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2007, 12:30 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Photoartist Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 12,363 Joined: Apr 2006 Member No: 399,390 |
QUOTE(MyMichelle @ Jul 14 2007, 01:26 AM) GET THE CANON! Ha ha, nah, that was my point. The Casio had more megapixels, but the Canon still performed better.
I used to have a Casio 5.0 mp, and it was worse than my 3.2 mp Canon (me, completely ignoring what Arjuna just said, haha) but seriously. Canon's cameras are great. Worth the money. Have way more fun color functions than most. :] |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2007, 09:36 AM
Post
#21
|
|
|
people are wrong. women ARE objects. Group: Member Posts: 189 Joined: Jun 2007 Member No: 540,281 |
QUOTE(tr1pp1n @ Jul 12 2007, 06:58 PM) ....Don't get caught up on the megapixels. Canon has a great array of functions for the money.... I TOLD YOU SO! EVEN BEFORE ARJUNA |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2007, 02:26 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
xkcd always Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 |
QUOTE(tr1pp1n @ Jul 14 2007, 07:36 AM) I TOLD YOU SO! EVEN BEFORE ARJUNA Nice edit in yur posts. Ok, but I don't want the SD1000 cause the edges will get scratched off easily. I was aiming more towards the SD850 or SD800 but they are like $350... |
|
|
|
| *MyMichelle* |
Jul 14 2007, 02:31 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Guest |
Just get ANY 5.0mp+ camera. You'll be able to find them for like 200-300. They might be more chunky looking, but they are still worth it. Plus the chunky ones are probably more rugged. ^_^"
WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT GET THE CASIO!!! :] |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2007, 06:22 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
people are wrong. women ARE objects. Group: Member Posts: 189 Joined: Jun 2007 Member No: 540,281 |
QUOTE($$$ soul @ Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM) Nice edit in yur posts. Ok, but I don't want the SD1000 cause the edges will get scratched off easily. I was aiming more towards the SD850 or SD800 but they are like $350... I didn't edit. go die |
|
|
|
| *MyMichelle* |
Jul 15 2007, 12:21 AM
Post
#25
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE($$ soul @ Jul 14 2007, 02:26 PM) Nice edit in yur posts. Ok, but I don't want the SD1000 cause the edges will get scratched off easily. I was aiming more towards the SD850 or SD800 but they are like $350... ...scratched off easily?! haha. They have many different ones. ^_^" I used to have a very rectangular one, and the edges never "scratched off." No worries. |
|
|
|
 |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: