I’ve had my digi cam since 2010 - it was a Nikon Coolpix and it’s served me well. While it still works, I think the time has come for an update, probably for this Christmas.
So…What would you guys recommend as good digital cameras in the $150-250 range? My main interest would be photographing people (mainly faces and such), so one that is sensitive to fine detail(s) of features (IE even things such as wrinkles, hair texture, etc) would be a plus.
Also, I would like one that outputs to more than just a 300 DPI jpeg (Which is the output of my Nikon).
You might try a used DSLR from Canon or Nikon. That way, you can experiment with all your new capabilities without spending much more than your budget. For one about the same vintage as your current P&S.
You can learn to control things semi auto, full auto, full manual, and you can find out what RAW files are good for.
I used to drag my Nikon d50 everywhere because there was no comparison in quality to the alternatives (cell phones or cheap point and shoots) at the time. However, I got sick of lugging that monstrosity with me everywhere, and having to change out the lenses all the time. So about 5 years ago I switched to a Canon Powershot with a 8x zoom lens. It actually worked great. (I’ve since lost it.) I routinely print my photos onto canvas or metal, and the resolution was sharp enough for 20 x 30" prints.
Like cell phone cameras, these point and shoots are improving every year. Just pay attention to the megapixels and zoom (higher the better). With post-production software that allows you to crop photos to zoom in on the area you want, I’ve found that I haven’t really missed my d50.
In your price point, I’d recommend the Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS with 20 Megapixels and 12x Optical Zoom (and Built-In Wi-Fi, which is sweet) if you want something light (it easily fits into a purse).
Or, for a larger and much better camera, consider Canon PowerShot SX530 with Built in wifi, 16MegaPixels, and a whopping 50x Optical Zoom. Camera itself is running about $250, but Amazon has a great bundle for $289 that includes camera, mini tripod, carrying case, 32gb SD card, and lithium battery. Costco also has a bundle right now for $250 that includes carrying case and 16gb card.
Not necessarily. Some camera makers indulge in “specs one-upmanship” and will cram in more megapixels and zoom magnifications than the technology and price point can comfortably handle. You are better off with 12 crisp, clean megapixels than 22 muddy ones. And better off with a good quality 5x zoom than a highly distorted 20x zoom with a tiny aperture. Check the reviews.
I object to this advice as well. Big zoom is nice in the right application, but useless to most people in everyday use. Most small cameras are unusable at full zoom in all but the brightest light. You need a tripod to get anything sharp and big lenses eat up lots of light. In my experience, most people who aren’t photographers do best with cameras with a 28-125mm equivalent lens. That makes for a smaller camera that people actually carry with them.
As to DPI, cameras don’t have DPI. They just have pixels. Your old Nikon produced images that could be used at any DPI you want, your software was playing games with you. This is a complete non-issue with any camera.
I don’t really think of $150 as entry-level. You can get a fairly high-end point-and-shoot for that.
Have a look at the Coolpix S6900 or whatever has replaced it; the L32 seems to be similar. Resolution to spare, lots of smart modes including glamour portraits and special exposure situations, an interface you’re probably familiar with, and an articulated (tilt-out) screen. I stumbled onto a refurb about 18 months ago. Unfortunately, I lost my S6900 yesterday, but I was so happy with the camera that I immediately bought the exact same model on eBay.
No, $150 is entry level. Anything below that is toy level.
As mentioned above, the Canon ELPH 360 ($200) or ELPH 190 ($150) are fine options in this category. The Canon ELPH 180 ($120) is on the edge. For portrait photography that the OP is looking for, you really don’t need too much telephoto reach so the more expensive small P&S cameras really won’t be as useful.
If the OP wants to spend more but stay with a P&S, something like the G1 X Mark 2 ($650) will really improve the quality of your images if used properly. The difference between it and the other small cameras is physical sensor size and better optics, resulting in improved image quality.
As no-one has really said it yet… OP, do you have a decent smartphone? The cameras on the latest generation of flagship phones are outstanding, and will compete with entry level point-and-shoots in terms of image quality (but maybe not handling). You also get RAW shooting, and if you’re not interested in setting exposure yourself, they’ll generally do a decent job of auto-exposure. They’ll probably outdo point-and-shoot cameras in terms of features as well, and auto-uploading or easily sharing photos isn’t to be sniffed at.
If you want a “proper camera” then I can totally understand that, and there are many fine recommendations in this thread, but if you happen to have a recent iPhone or Galaxy or similar, do give the camera a go. You might be surprised.
I’ve owned several Canon PowerShot cameras and have taken them on multiple vacations, to graduations and other events. And while I don’t carry a purse, it’s nice that you can turn off the camera, the lens retracts into the body and the whole thing can fit in a pocket. Yes, a real DSLR is probably a better, more capable camera, but being able to easily carry a point-and-shoot camera is a big advantage.
Can you clarify this? Do you mean zoom lenses that are not big enough (aperture-wise) to support the magnification being used? I’ve noticed that a zoom lens does tend to darken the image somewhat.
The OP may find this related thread of mine interesting.
Thanks to Tim R. Mortiss and others who replied there.
Don’t look at the DPI stats - that’s just a measure of scaling for print (and you can have a low-resolution image with a very high DPI - it just means it will be tiny on the printed page)
look at the image resolution - the ‘megapixels’ of the actual image sensor in the camera - bearing in mind that more megapixels is not necessarily always better - because the higher the number of pixels on the sensor, the smaller the individual pixel elements are, and the more prone they are to electronic noise - so total sensor area is also a factor - if your budget can stretch to it, consider cameras with larger physical dimensions of the sensor.