[quote=“joesax”]…the basic mju-II camera does almost everything I need it to, with much higher resolution than most digital cameras and much less weight than all SLR-types while letting in more light than compact zooms. Plus it’s splash- and shower-proof.[/quote]Unfortunately I lost this camera and need to replace it in a hurry. It would be easy just to get the same one again, for about 3000NT, but I’m considering digital instead, and for that I’d spend up to 5000NT.
I want a camera that uses regular size batteries such as AAs. It should be reasonably sturdy, although I suppose there aren’t any cheap splashproof digitals. I don’t know whether storage space is an issue – anyway, I want it to be able to store about 50 photos.
Frankly, at that price range, you’re better off with a film camera. The cameras I’ve played with before in that range are pretty poor quality. Maybe in a year or two you’ll see better stuff in this price range, but I wouldn’t expect much at all from a digital camera for anything less than TWD7000 currently.
I have a BenQ camera that cost me about 4000 NT, plus 500 for the 64 Mb memory card (holds about 70 at high quality). It’s two megapixels, has a built in battery, can record video or audio clips, and is reasonably sturdy, even to the point of surviving minor splashes. I can’t remember the model number, but frankly it’s not relevant. Any BenQ in this price range will be roughly the same.
Basically I like it, but I must admit it has it’s weaknesses. Close-ups do not work well. The color is not terrible like the mini Digimaster I tried out, but it’s not nearly as bright as I would like. The flash is too hot at it’s centerpoint.
However, for a point and shoot guy it saves a lot on film developing, and because of that you use it a lot more often. So you end up with thousands of random pictures of whatever cute thing you happen to see, which is cool. And the instant gratification is good too.
I do wish I had a more capable model with a real lens and a better CCD (eye). But at any rate I don’t regret buying it, and I got a more capable model I would happily send this one off to my mom or whoever.
I have a Minolta Dimage XT. It cost more than 7,000 NT at the time (though the price dropped shortly after I bought it). I have to say that though I like the color and picture quality, I would STRONGLY discourage others from buying one of these itsby bitsy digicams. They’re fine for really low res shots, but it’s very difficult to hold the camera steady enough for a crystal clear hi-res shot, even when adjusting the speed to ISO 400.
Cheaper digicams won’t have speed adjustment settings or take hi-res pics, but they will have the same problem holding steady. You won’t really get the feel for this in the store taking practice pics, unfortunately. The deficiencies tend to pop up when you’re ‘in the field’.
The sole advantage of a super-mini is its size. And that is very nice, I have to say.
So I say go with something you can hold comfortably in your hand. See if Nikon offers anything in the 5000 NT range. I’m not sure I’d go for a no-name brand or super-cheapie. You’ll wind up hating the shots (especially the color), and it’s unlikely the thing will last longer than a year or two.
I have a small digital camera (Digimaster, about 4200 NTD) and it’s a truly wonderful toy. I wouldn’t call it a camera though.
And even though I’m young and healthy enough to keep my hands still and hold the camera steady for a while, it’s somewhat difficult to explain my 4-month-old child not to move his hands while I’m taking photos - sure, he looks good with wings too, but I would prefer a camera that can be used for moving objects as well.
Can you get a crystal clear shot every time on the first try at 3000 X2000 (or thereabouts) MP? If so, I shall promptly look into that brand!
It’s not an issue of being ‘young and healthy’ (sometimes this forum…) but of the lag between the time the button is depressed, the focus locked, and the shot captured. With the better cameras, like the Nikons, this time is extremely short. For others, it’s longer. For cheapies that are super low res with minimal auto features, there usually isn’t an issue either, since the photo quality usually stinks anyway.
The other problem with the Minolta is its shape. You can’t get a natural grip on it like you would a larger digicam or 35 MM. Come to think of it, the Minolta has numerous issues…
[quote=“Gubo”] It’s not an issue of being ‘young and healthy’ (sometimes this forum…) but of the lag between the time the button is depressed, the focus locked, and the shot captured.
[/quote]
I didn’t mean to offend you, I was just being a cheeky bitch and there’s nothing personal about that.
[quote=“Gubo”]Can you get a crystal clear shot every time on the first try at 3000 X2000 (or thereabouts) MP? If so, I shall promptly look into that brand!
[/quote]
Well, to tell you the truth, I never use 3000x2000 resolution - life is just too short for that and 2000x1600 is good enough for me (on computer screen as well as on paper).
I think I could get a crystal clear shot of a church or a sleeping dog on the first try. But it takes about 10 tries to get a decent photo of a happy baby. And when it’s dark, all the colours go red. And the flash as well as digital zoom are useless.
My sister had the cheapest Canon with an optical zoom (a bit more than 7000 NTD), it was a little bit bigger but SO much better. My camera is just a happy little thing - it’s blue and plays nice melodies when I open or close the lid… If it was a smiley it would look like this
Sorry for taking it personally. There are just so many cynical and sarcastic people here, I get a bit edgy. Sometimes it’s hard to separate the pricks from the people being silly, if that makes sense.
10 tries (or maybe 5)…sounds about right for moving objects. Still objects - maybe 2 or 3 tries for a shot with good lighting and color.
I still have a Sony Cybershot which I purchased some 3-4 years back. Excellent camera, though the color isn’t as good as the Minolta. Much easier to capture a clear pic on the first or second try, though, due to a more comfortable size, much better grip, and somewhat faster electronics.
For the person getting a new camera - maybe look into a low-end Sony. Won’t be the best in the world, but ease of use should make it a good starter camera, since it’s your first digicam.
Thanks to everybody for the tips. I didn’t know it was such a minefield. Why is movement such an issue? Is the shutter speed much slower or something? I mean I know about the time lag, but surely the actual exposure time is pretty quick.
I’m still in two minds. It seems from what most people wrote that I’d be best to go for a brand-name Japanese model, but I may spend 7,000 or more for that. In contrast, the mju-II film camera is 3,000, has good image quality and is very sturdy.
Yeah, the shutter speed is fast, though in low-lighting conditions the standard speed may be too slow, which is why it’s nice to be able to choose between AFA 100, 200, and 400. You can use a flash in low-light, but that causes all kinds of color problems.
The problem with keeping steady is usually with the focus speed, as well as the time between focusing, pressing the button, and the shutter opening. The latter sequence isn’t instant, as with an auto-focus SLR. But I’ve tried out digital Nikons which were terrifically fast. The itsby bitsy things are also clumsy to grip.
Heck, if you can get something decent for 3000 then why not give it a try. At least you’re not too deep into it. I dumped a lot more than that into the Minolta and wound up somewhat regretting it. If I had to choose again, I would have bought something larger and more solid - maybe a Nikon or Canon.
A final thought that bears restating - The ONLY advantage of the mini cams is the size. For taking in a shirt pocket, they’re awesome, and one can put up with the problems. But for more serious photography, at any level, you need to go with something more substantial. I thought I was getting it all with the Dimage XT. I think I was being a bit naive and a bit greedy.
My experience with digital cameras (Nikon 950, Canon SD100, Dimage Xt) has been pretty much that I’m consistently able to capture “good” pictures on the first try (ie not blurred). There are a few differences of course…the Canon takes a long time to focus in low-light conditions, the Dimage isn’t easy to hold one-handed (but it has very fast shutter response), the Nikon was ridiculously expensive.
Ack, I just realized something. I take a lot of indoor shots and use the zoom feature extensively. That’s what I was thinking of when referring to the shaking issue. For regular non-zoomed shots, the XT is pretty good, and takes clear shots on the first try, or second at the latest. My bad.
Heh, I have to say, it is nice to zoom in on something 150 feet away and get a clear shot. Though that kind of shot is 1 in 20. The rest will be blurry. I think I really have been asking too much of the XT. :loco:
After some internet research, I realised that the Canon A300 and A310 were roughly the digital equivalent to my old mju-II but had more control over things such as white balance and exposure. They have excellent image quality and an adequate 3 megapixels. No zoom but that quickens start-up time and means more available light, as well as making it a nice compact size. They use AA batteries.
The A310 is this year’s model but the only extras are a button to ease interaction with special printers, and some more options in the movie mode. I saw an A310 for 7,200NT but then found a shop selling A300s for 4,900NT. I bought the latter. A 128MB Compact Flash Card (the bundled one is only 32MB) was 900NT and a nice carry bag/pouch was 350NT. So for 6,000NT and change I got something that suits me very well.
