# Do any digital cameras ~$150 save the photo quickly? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 2, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007 "2007-11-02T13:34:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/1 "2007-11-02T13:34:53Z")
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 > **[Amazon.com : Canon PowerShot A570IS 7.1MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image...](https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B000NK3H4S)** > > Product Description CL) Canon A570 IS digital camera From the Manufacturer Even when the kids cant sit still and the light is less than ideal, the amazing, the PowerShot A570 IS lets you capture lifes special moments --... ---
**Author:** ![fishbicycle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aeb1de/32.png) [@fishbicycle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishbicycle)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/2 "2007-11-02T13:44:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![myskepticsight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@myskepticsight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myskepticsight)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/3 "2007-11-02T13:45:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/4 "2007-11-02T14:27:21Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![myskepticsight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@myskepticsight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myskepticsight)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/5 "2007-11-02T14:38:09Z")
I looked a little harder, an DPReview timed all the lag between functions: > **[Canon PowerShot A570 IS Full Review](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona570is/4)** > > Over the years Canon's A series of budget priced compact cameras has grown to a considerable line-up of now nine models, developing along the way from simple 'point and shoot' entry-level models into fully featured enthusiast models for the... ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/6 "2007-11-02T14:40:14Z")
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! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/7 "2007-11-02T15:51:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/8 "2007-11-02T17:53:09Z")
[QUOTE=Epimetheus] 7+ MP seems excessive unless you are shooting pictures for larger sizes (like 10 X 11 or something). [/QUOTE] 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=440441). ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/9 "2007-11-02T18:00:35Z")
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. [The MegaPixel Myth](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/10 "2007-11-02T18:11:05Z")
FWIW, [check out this article](http://www.epinions.com/content_2574753924), especially the part about resolution: > [@](#): > > Anyway, now that we�re clearer on what pixels and dots are, you need to consider how many of these you need for your purpose. Remember my advice in section 2 (regarding suitability for purpose). So, if you�re primarily shooting pictures for use on web sites, on-line auctions, to attach pictures of junior to emails to the grandparents, or for other such purposes involving only display on computer monitors, then you probably only need a camera that produces enough pixels to fill people�s 100 PPI monitors. Around 1200 pixels across (and 900 high) should do, which puts you in the 1-mega-pixel camera class. If, on the other hand, you want professional-looking 4 x 6 photographic prints, consider that most professional dye-sublimation printers (the type of printer used by photo services for this purpose) run at about 300 PPI, which means that you need an image approximately 1800 pixels across (and 1200 high) to get the best quality 4 x 6 print. If you multiply, you�ll see we�re now talking about a 2.1 megapixel camera. However, this does not leave you any room to crop and enlarge. If you should happen to want to crop away half of a picture and enlarge the rest back up to 4 x 6, you have suddenly lost half of your pixels. So if you want to crop and enlarge, or if you want to make high quality prints larger than 4 x 6, you need even more pixels. 3.3-megapixel cameras�becoming quite popular now�produce images 2048 pixels wide and 1536 pixels high.\* These can produce prints up to 5 x 7 at maximum quality (300 PPI), and prints up to 8 x 10 at an acceptable quality (about 200 PPI). If your plan is to do 8 x 10 enlargements from your digital camera on a regular basis, you should consider a more expensive camera in the 5 to7 megapixel range. (And be prepared to pay a lot, as this technology is still cutting its baby teeth.) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2007, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/11 "2007-11-03T00:31:42Z")
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](http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF06a/5043-5047-5051-5051-326389-326399.html). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2007, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/12 "2007-11-03T00:57:43Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] 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](http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF06a/5043-5047-5051-5051-326389-326399.html). 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. [/QUOTE] 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: > [@](#): > > To make things more complicated, those who manufacture and sell output devices are not consistent with their use of the terminology. Often people say DPI (dots per inch) when they should be speaking of PPI (pixels per inch), and vice-versa. A couple of examples: Take your computer monitor. Each pixel is actually displayed as three adjacent dots (a red one, a green one, and a blue one) each lit in varying intensities to create the illusion of a single pixel of one colour and brightness. There are from 72 to over 100 of these pixels per inch of display (depending on your monitor and your video card, etc.). Another example, commonly misunderstood, is that of the colour ink-jet printer. It takes many ink dots (typically in black, cyan, magenta, and yellow) from an ink jet printer to simulate 1 colour pixel from a digital picture: A home printer operating at a resolution of 1440 DPI can reproduce no more than 300 PPI. Remember, you really care about pixels, not dots. But that big 1440 number makes it sound really impressing. To make things even more complicated, the opposite error is often committed when quoting the resolution of dye-sublimation printers. I’ve often seen dye-sub printers quoted using expressions like ‘300 DPI’ when, which might make them look bad next to a 1400 DPI ink-jet printer, unless you happen to know that dye-sub printers lay down their ‘dots’ (more like puffs of gaseous dye) right on top of each other, with 300 of these multi-layer ‘stacks’ of dye side by side in a linear inch, which means that it is actually producing 300 PPI. (And a much better-looking 300 PPI than the ink jet printer, since the dye-sub printer is not relying on your eyes and brain blending together adjacent dots; the dots actually are blended on the paper.) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2007, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/13 "2007-11-03T01:00:49Z")
[Dye Sublimation Printer - 331 DPI](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/369367-REG/Sony_UPDR150_4_UP_DR150_Digital_Photo_Printer.html) [Another one - 300 DPI](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/385925-REG/Kodak_8939175_Professional_9810_Digital_Photo.html) ---
**Author:** ![NBYodo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a9a28c/32.png) [@NBYodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NBYodo)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/14 "2007-12-31T16:48:34Z")
[QUOTE=Telemark] 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. [/QUOTE] 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_memory_cards). 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 ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/15 "2007-12-31T17:24:26Z")
I ended up buying a Canon Rebel XT1 at > **[Amazon.com : Canon Digital Rebel XTi 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Black Body Only)...](https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-10-1MP-Camera/dp/B000I1ZWRW)** > > From the Manufacturer Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi offers an unbeatable combination of performance, ease-of-use and value. It has a newly designed 10.1-megapixel CMOS sensor plus a host of new features including a 2.5-inch LCD monitor, the... 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. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/16 "2008-01-01T20:26:48Z")
[QUOTE=NBYodo] 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? [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/17 "2008-01-01T23:58:40Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] 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](http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF06a/5043-5047-5051-5051-326389-326399.html). 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2008, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/18 "2008-01-02T08:36:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2008, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-any-digital-cameras-150-save-the-photo-quickly/425007/19 "2008-01-02T16:58:32Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] I ended up buying a Canon Rebel XTi [/quote] 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.