looking for a newer inexpensive camera

[redtj06]

I take pictures just because I'm there but don't have a camera other than my movie camera that takes still. would appreciate any advice on an camera say around $500.00

[WheelingIt]

If you're looking for a decent point and shoot I'd recommend the Canon S95. Very good gear for the money.

[sky_watcher]

And I would recommend a Sony DSLR, an A350 kit w/lens perhaps, that would allow you to put a variety of lenses on it. The Sony DSLR has in-the-body stabilization that Canon doesn't have. You might find you take more stills if you had a DSLR instead of a point-and-shoot.

That said, I have a Canon PowerShot bought back in '05 that makes nice jpegs.

For myself, my gear is a Sony A550 with a 100mm F2.8 Sony full macro lens; it's the only lens I use and its versatility is marvelous. And despite what they say about not being able to handhold on macro shots, this combination works very well with sharp, clear images handheld.
Hubby has a Sony A750(gone the way of the dinosaurs I'm afraid) with a wide angle, a telephoto, and an F2.8 70-200. All capable of being handheld because of in-the-body stabilization. You can tell we take our photography seriously.

[redtj06]

I checked out the Sony and found 2 an A290L DSLR and A390L both come in a kit that has a 55-200mm lens. Is this set up near what you have? I am camera uneducated but can learn at thing I put my mind to.
Thanks for the info.

[WheelingIt]

Not to be contrarian...the Sony DSLR is a lovely camera (no doubt!), but keep in mind that if you own a DSLR you will be lugging around alot more weight than a point and shoot, plus you'll be looking at lenses and other stuff. If you're the kind that takes pictures just for record then I think a DSLR is overdoing it. If, however, you're really interested in learning more about photography then a SLR is definitely the way to go. My impression from your original post was that you just needed a good snapshot camera?

I have both, being also quite serious about photography. I have the Canon S95 for my hiking and snapshots plus I have a full Nikon SLR (with 2 lenses, a 50mm and 18-200VRmm plus set of extention tubes) for my more serious stuff. That also means I have a tripod (again for the Nikon) and a camera bag (again, for the Nikon). When I hike w/ my camera and 2 lenses I hike with ~7lbs of extra weight. When I go out w/ my point and shoot I just slip it into my pocket. It's something to think about...

If you decide you DO want a point and shoot, I mentioned the S95 as one of the better options (which is the reason I own one).
You can read more about the S95 here:
Ken Rockwell's review: Canon S95
DP review: Enthusiast Compact Camera Group Test (Q4 2010) Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Enjoy your new gear whatever you get!

[Midniteoyl]

Most places are calling the Panasonic Lumix series the best of the year.. My best advice is to look up a couple review sites, read about the top 5, then hit a brickandmorter to actually test them out..

[sky_watcher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redtj06 I checked out the Sony and found 2 an A290L DSLR and A390L both come in a kit that has a 55-200mm lens. Is this set up near what you have? I am camera uneducated but can learn at thing I put my mind to. Thanks for the info.

Red,
The two Sony's that you found are both a good starter camera. The kit lens you listed is a good, all-around lens. If you decide to go the DSLR route, this is the way to start; with a decent camera body and a good, general lens. It took me 2 years of shooting different stuff to realize that I really wanted to shoot macro. And it took me that same 2 years to realize that my Canon 40D with its stabilization in the lenses themselves(and therefore very expensive) was not the camera I really liked or that met my needs. But you start somewhere.

The poster who writes about a tripod; yes, I own one of those because my Canon camera(and the Nikon I may say as well)cannot be handheld in many situations. I do use my tripod when I am doing creative work that requires long exposures; no one can hold a camera that still for that long, regardless of what is supposed to be stabilized. But I take my setup on hikes, take lots of naturally lit, handheld nature shots that I could never have taken with my Canon. I do not lug around a tripod in the woods because 90% of the time, I don't use one.

The poster who talked about the Lumix. Yes, nice camera. Leo LaPorte who does a satellite radio show called "Leo LaPorte, the Tech Guy", got one for his wife, a non-photographer in her own eyes, and now she won't put it down. Loves it.

Don't buy anything in haste. Read, talk to people. Don't be fooled into thinking you have to have this or that brand of camera, or do this or that style of shooting. You'll make mistakes; defining what you really want to do with this camera comes only as you shoot. This is one of the reasons that so many people have so many lenses/camera bodies. I've found out what works better for what I shoot and the way I shoot; my husband has different interests and uses lenses I don't use although they fit my camera body. Now it's time for you to figure it out for yourself.

[WheelingIt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midniteoyl Most places are calling the Panasonic Lumix series the best of the year.. My best advice is to look up a couple review sites, read about the top 5, then hit a brickandmorter to actually test them out..

The Lumix is very nice. When I was looking at point and shoots I was pretty stuck between the Canon S95 and the Lumix DMC-LX5 It's definitely worth checking it out. The DPreview link reviews both. Nina

[Midniteoyl]

Also.. Dont forget about the Low Light performance... several cameras take awsome pics in full light, but fail miserably indoors at night... You want a quality sensor first and formost (IMHO), megapixels be damned. Case in point, I still have a Nikon Coolpix 990 (remember those? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990/) from waayyyy back in 2000 that still takes better pics than most sub-$350 cameras today (much to the shagrin of my kid who bought a $370 Finepix only to find my old one outshoots it in low light, or even most of the time)

[sky_watcher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midniteoyl Also.. Dont forget about the Low Light performance... several cameras take awsome pics in full light, but fail miserably indoors at night... You want a quality sensor first and formost (IMHO), megapixels be damned. Case in point, I still have a Nikon Coolpix 990 (remember those? Nikon Coolpix 990 Review: 1. Intro: Digital Photography Review) from waayyyy back in 2000 that still takes better pics than most sub-$350 cameras today (much to the shagrin of my kid who bought a $370 Finepix only to find my old one outshoots it in low light, or even most of the time)

I have to agree here. The megapixal race is waaayyy over-rated That's why the op needs to figure out what conditions, what subject matter that they'll shoot most in and get the best that they can for the money they want to spend.

[redtj06]

First I want to thank all of you. My name is Alan , Red is the color of my toad. Not trying to confuse anyone.
I'll definitely be doing research on a camera. The cam corder works ok for just picks but not super for real pick's.
Thanks
Alan

[StarGazer-1]

Why spend $500 for a point and shoot when you can go out and buy the KODAK EASYSHARE Z1012 IS Digital Camera. I got it about two year's ago @ Sam's Club for around $250.00 and upgraded the memory to 16GB (about $32 from Wal-Mart). I hope my two cents helps out some. Good luck!

[deandec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redtj06 I take pictures just because I'm there but don't have a camera other than my movie camera that takes still. would appreciate any advice on an camera say around $500.00

I received a Panasonic Lumix as a gift from my DW.

$199 at Best Buy. But will need to buy a memory card also.

It is a point and shoot with a whole lot of options including video with sound.

My first use was to make copies of old 35mm slides that my parents had saved.

I projected the slides onto a screen in a dark room, and then snapped a picture of the projected image with the Lumix on a tripod.

The results were quite true to the quality of the projected image. I was impressed along with saving photo conversion money.

I am very pleased with the camera although it is a little bit bigger than my previous Olympus from 2004.

[Wayne M]

I have owned a lot of different cameras. The Panasonic Luminix is a great camera - any model. The Casio is another one. One of the things I look for in a camera is "image stabilization" either body or Lens. Canon was the first to produce the OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) lens. and Panasonic the MegaOIS. Both are very, very good.

If you just take pictures because you are there, and sometimes on the move, the the simplest of cameras will do you well. You really have to have a mind set of what you want to do with a camera, and then read the reviews to see if that camera you are considering will do the job. All those cameras previously mentioned will take a picture, just like your Sony video will take a still picture.

So do some reviewing. Here is one site that I use Steve's Digicam Review. He's been around for years and does good reviews.

For consideration would be the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10

I'm presently using the Canon T2i and I am really enjoying it.