High quality shots, that is.
One of the things I’ve seen with people who own digi-cams is when they’re shooting several shots one after another, like at a birthday party, there’s often a maddening wait while the chip saves a pic, before it will allow another picture to be taken.
I’m thinking about buying the ones at
I’m getting the model under that one for Xmas! The specs say that it will take rapid-fire shots only 1.x seconds apart, so it must be able to save them at least as quickly. If you’ve got it set on the maximum quality, that may be different. It doesn’t say “…only at (this) resolution but not at (that) one.” I think that if you had a large-capacity SD card, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Canons are good, but the A series like the one you linked to are for the most part their ‘beginner’ cameras. Affordable and not too complicated, yet still nice. This camera will not be super fast. Consider buying a higher speed SD card, like an Ultra II. It will help your camera reach its maximum saving speeds.
Also, if the camera has a ‘burst’ mode, it will allow you to take pics one after another. This camera will do 1.7 fps (frames per second) until the card is full. If you use this mode you can take a bunch of pics very quickly, but there will be a lag after you stop shooting for saving time.
But if fast shooting and less lag is a big deal, you might have to spend some more bucks. I haven’t been selling cams for awhile so I’m not up to date on all the new models, but from playing with what felt like 897258975 cameras at that job, usually spending like $300+ wil be necessary for a small, quick camera with good photos. While more and more of the A series Canons are adding more features, truth is they’re just not as fast as the SD line. The A series is for people who just want a good digicam that is affordable; not necessarily the very best or anything. I often sold these cameras to first time buyers or people with a budget that just wanted to snap pics of their kids and whatnot. This camera will be good, all Canons I’ve encountered are good, but it might not be fast enough for you. If you can, go to a store and try it out before you order it.
I hate the lag in digital cameras. SLR cameras are usually faster IME.
7+ MP seems excessive unless you are shooting pictures for larger sizes (like 10 X 11 or something). If you could find a 3-5 MP camera that has an SLR and a high quality CMOS for the same price but with a faster response and higher quality images, go for that instead.
The whole “larger MP is always better” is mostly a marketing thing, and if the camera has 7 MP but has large pixels and a poor CMOS chip (among other factors), you aren’t getting as good of a deal than a 5 MP camera that is high end.
That is why you see 3.0 MP cameras cost as much or more than some of the 10 MP cameras. People see the high number and go for it, not thinking there is a REASON the 3.0 MP camera is more expensive. It isn’t always about brand in this case.
I looked a little harder, an DPReview timed all the lag between functions:
I vastly appreciate all these inputs, so I hope they don’t stop.
I’m off for for my car’s emission tests, and with the long, long lines, I might not be back until 2008. :rolleyes:
But please keep 'em coming! 
If you are taking flash shots all bets are off. The recharge time for the flash will outweigh any of the other camera operations.
If you aren’t shooting flash there are two paths. Pushing the shutter release will cause the camera to acquire focus (which takes longer in low light or with a moving subject), adjust the various attibutes (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, white balance), take the picture and write it out. Of those, writing out the image is the least of your problems. Cameras have buffers to allow them to take multiple shots, and normal shooting won’t affect that. Buying a faster card won’t (usually) help you at all. The time it takes to focus, adjust the settings, and take the picture overwhelms the time it takes to write out the image.
Most cameras have continuous shooting or “burst” modes. On my Canon SD800 for example I can shoot 1.7 FPS until I fill up the memory card. The camera achieves this by not refocusing or changing the settings between shots. If your subject is moving a lot or going through changing lighting settings this can be a problem, but for most uses it will get you the most shots in a short time. I use it for shooting skiers and other action sports, but also for getting many shots of someone in a nice pose. You may gain some advantage here from a fast memory card, but for a $150 camera it’s unlikely that any will have a very fast burst mode to tax a memory card.
The A570IS is an excellent choice, IMO.
This bit is simply not true. For starters, if you are printing at 600 dpi then 7MP won’t cover a 6x4 photo. The difference is noticeable with finer detail. Equally, more MP means that you can process the picture more on your PC.
We recently covered this issue in depth in this thread.
If you are “printing” your own pictures and you notice that much of a difference, something is wrong with your printer or you have a crappy lower MP camera.
I can provide many more sites, many of them just as respected sources of technical data such as CNET, et al.
And the “In depth” that was covered in that thread supports my own statement rather than your claim. Unless you mean the one post (yours) that claimed otherwise.
FWIW, check out this article, especially the part about resolution:
So unless you are planning on doing a lot of 8X10 Enlargements (i.e cut aways and blow ups of a particular area), you don’t really NEED a 7 MP camera (5 works just as good too), in fact you can do 8 X 10’s at ~200 PPI with a 3.3 MP camera which is pretty good.
The article is slightly dated, but the math is still correct.
Things have moved on from 2002. For instance, a quick check at HP’s website shows that their laser printers print colour at up to 600 dpi. Cite.
Sure, most people don’t need the extra resolution, and the likes of Boots and Jessops only print at up to 300 dpi, but if you need the extra resolution, you can do it.
He explained the difference between laser printers and professional printing hardware (dye-sublimation printers). Here is his quote, notice he mentions 1400 DPI inkjet printers as an example:
Your High quality, top end laser printer comes nowhere near the quality a professional photo developer would use. The 300 DPI on the dye-sub printer is far better than the 1400 (or 600 on your laser printers) DPI on your home bought printers.
A quick side question here: How fast is the data transfer rate between the camera and memory card? Up to what point is the card the limiting factor?
I’m asking, because it would be nice to know if it would be worth getting the faster version of a card.
Do the cameras support the theoretical max transfer speeds of the memory card standard? see wiki comparison of mem card standards.
So for a CF card, does the camera support 133 MB/s (which would be faster than any of the available CF cards out right now - SanDisk Extreme IV is 40MB/s).
Can’t find any info on supported card data rate for any of the cameras in my household… (Olympus E-500, Casio Exilim EX-Z57, Canon A40).
Thanks in advance guys!
NB
I ended up buying a Canon Rebel XT1 at
and with it a SanDisk 2GB ULTRA II
Very happy with both, and I have no waiting (so far) for the save - at full auto, anyway.
I took flash shots of the family at Christmas dinner and the save was so quick I shot without pausing. They came out ok.
Keep your eyes open for online sales. Sometimes the prices for cards are absurdly low.
For most P&S cameras that use SD cards, a 60x card (or Class 4 SDHC) is going to be faster then the camera is capable of writing. And that is pretty much only for shooting full sized images in burst mode – video actually isn’t as demanding. With the prices of cards today, it doesn’t make any sense to get anything below 60x, and rarely makes sense to get anything faster. With DSLRs all bets are off, you have to look much more closely at the specs.
For your cameras, the E-500 might be able to take advantage of a faster card, but only in certain situations. For 99% of your shooting it won’t matter.
7MP from a point-and-shoot camera is overkill. A 6MP DSLR (the Nikon D70) can make 3’x5’ prints. On a point-and-shoot, the lens is so small that the resolution is determined by diffraction, not the number of pixels on the sensor. Also, the 600 dpi laser printer resolution you cite above is only the addressable positioning of the dots. The actual resolvable full-color resolution is well under 150 dpi.
I used to be worried about the delay myself, and bought a camera (Canon 800IS) with less of a delay, as well as amore expensive SD card. But, although that helps, I find that what truly causes delay is using flash, and the focus. If you have good lighting you can avoid the flash, and on some cameras you can prefocus.
Speed is pretty much the real reason I use a DSLR – I got so very tired of missing a good pic every damn time I took a shot because the camera took 3/4 of a sec (a very long time when shooting stills) to focus and shoot. The EOS 300D and now the very fast 400D were a godsend for me.