AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > Tech Support

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-11-25, 23:43   Link #1
guest
guess
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
digital camera with the size of a cell phone?

Can someone recommend me a digital camera that is as small as a cell phone but still takes pic with digital camera quality? I have to say, using a cell phone taking pic only gets crappy ones. I would like to have a small digital camera to carry around and take good pic. Anyone knows about this?
__________________
guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 00:22   Link #2
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
What's your definition of "digital camera quality"? Even among digital cameras, the quality varies widely.

There are some extremely small cameras. One day, one of my friends pulled out the smallest one I'd seen yet. It's by Canon, the model is the Elph. It's pretty rare, usually you only see people with PowerShots or Cybershots, whatever they're called... either way, look into the Elph (also called Elf, but it seems Elph is the official spelling). The image quality is quite decent for a point-and-shoot, but what really impressed me was the extremely short load time. My Olympus D-435 (my first digital camera, a dinosaur by today's standards) takes about 2-4 seconds to become usable upon opening the shutter, but the Elph seemed to be usable within a second.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 03:15   Link #3
Syaoran
Contemplating Naruto
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Well... why not a mobile phone with a camera :3 ?

I think this one won't disappoint: http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/prod...0i?cc=gb&lc=en

Comes with 8GB internal storage and a 5mp camera. Dunno how well the CCD performs, but if it's comparable to my K810i, I won't be disappointing at all
__________________

Visit http://syaoran.miniville.fr/ or help them get a job (~_^)
Syaoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 04:10   Link #4
wnmnkh
Not that simple.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
CCD/pixel is not that really important... lens it is. And obviously, cameras with size of cell phones
usually do not have decent lens (higher pixel =/= high quality btw... higher pixel with crappy around equipment means more noise)

I strongly recommend to visit digital camera review.

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/
wnmnkh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 04:37   Link #5
LynnieS
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
What's your definition of "digital camera quality"? Even among digital cameras, the quality varies widely.

There are some extremely small cameras. One day, one of my friends pulled out the smallest one I'd seen yet. It's by Canon, the model is the Elph. It's pretty rare, usually you only see people with PowerShots or Cybershots, whatever they're called... either way, look into the Elph (also called Elf, but it seems Elph is the official spelling). The image quality is quite decent for a point-and-shoot, but what really impressed me was the extremely short load time. My Olympus D-435 (my first digital camera, a dinosaur by today's standards) takes about 2-4 seconds to become usable upon opening the shutter, but the Elph seemed to be usable within a second.
Doesn't Canon market the Digital Elph cameras as PowerShots?

I second the Elph also, and have one for my knock-about camera when a D-SLR is too big and heavy. It's pretty light and has the usual features on a point-and-shoot with a decent optical zoom lens. Many (all?) have viewfinders (in addition to the now common LCD display) mean that bright sunlight won't bother you as much. Mine was also pretty strong as well; surviving hikes and being dropped with dings only.

The Kodak EasyShare V570 is also pretty light, but I'm reading some good and bad reviews over it.
__________________
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!
LynnieS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 09:39   Link #6
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yamabuki Art High School
Age: 65
Another happy Elph user here. Mine is at least 5-6 years old, has a few dings from droppage, but peforms well in many lighting situations. About the size of a pack of cigarettes. We sometimes have to scour the house to find it as it can disappear in the rubble easily.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-26, 23:43   Link #7
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
Doesn't Canon market the Digital Elph cameras as PowerShots?
After I read some more reviews over it, you're right - it is a part of the PowerShot line.

As to the remark about using a cellphone as a camera, forget it. When I got my first cameraphone, I slowly grew to be enthusiastic about it. It sort of got me into photography. When I upgraded cellphones I made sure that it had the highest-end camera at the time - 1.2 megapixels. While the phone took pictures with a much greater resolution than my previous one, the color balance was terrible and there was a lot of noise in the pictures. I've heard that there are some more decent camera phones out there (particularly those by Nokia, I believe it is) but let's face it - it can't compare to a regular camera.

Consumers get into the megapixel race the same way that we all used to think that megahertz were the only thing that determined processor performance. As LynnieS pointed out, the lens and optics probably play the greatest role in raw image quality, with the sensors coming in as a close second. My 5.2 megapixel point-and-shoot was amazing compared with the cameraphones, but in comparison with my newer DSLR (Olympus E-VOLT 410, 10 megapixels) the pictures are noisy and blocky, especially under sub-optimal conditions.

As for me, I'm turning out to be an Olympus fanboy and plan to get one of their 790 SW's (or one of the later iterations) as the point-and-shoot to take for things where the DSLR would be too big or at risk. The SW's are waterproof (the depths vary with the models), freeze proof, and crush proof. I really like the idea of a camera that is water proof - the one time I went snorkeling, I was really sore that I couldn't bring my camera with me. How neat would it be to just bring it down there with you? I'd love to buy a waterproof casing for my DSLR, but those things cost more than the camera itself...
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-27, 21:00   Link #8
Epyon9283
Geek
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New Jersey
Age: 31
Send a message via ICQ to Epyon9283 Send a message via AIM to Epyon9283
I just got a nikon coolpix s51 which is pretty small. The pictures are kind of noisy, particularly in low light, but the pictures are far and away better than any crappy cell phone camera. Only thing I don't like about it is the power button is in a retarded place. Right next to the shutter button. Its so easy to accidently turn the camera on/off.
Epyon9283 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-28, 05:22   Link #9
grey_moon
Yummy, sweet and unyuu!!!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
CCD/pixel is not that really important... lens it is. And obviously, cameras with size of cell phones
usually do not have decent lens (higher pixel =/= high quality btw... higher pixel with crappy around equipment means more noise)

I strongly recommend to visit digital camera review.

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/
Double thumbs up on checking out reviews. I got a Sony T1 as a present and good lord is it pants at taking shots past 5m away. On the LCD the picture looks fine, but as when it saves it the image is really really dark. From what I gather a firmware flash can't fix it
__________________
grey_moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-28, 10:03   Link #10
LynnieS
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
As to the remark about using a cellphone as a camera, forget it. When I got my first cameraphone, I slowly grew to be enthusiastic about it. It sort of got me into photography. When I upgraded cellphones I made sure that it had the highest-end camera at the time - 1.2 megapixels. While the phone took pictures with a much greater resolution than my previous one, the color balance was terrible and there was a lot of noise in the pictures. I've heard that there are some more decent camera phones out there (particularly those by Nokia, I believe it is) but let's face it - it can't compare to a regular camera.
I have to agree with you as well. My mobile has a 2MP camera, but if I twitch just the slightest bit when taking the photo, there is so much noise and artifacts in the image that it's useless. The capture time is too high, I think.

Quote:
Consumers get into the megapixel race the same way that we all used to think that megahertz were the only thing that determined processor performance. As LynnieS pointed out, the lens and optics probably play the greatest role in raw image quality, with the sensors coming in as a close second.
One correction: It was wnmnkh who pointed this out, so the credit should go to him instead.

Quote:
As for me, I'm turning out to be an Olympus fanboy and plan to get one of their 790 SW's (or one of the later iterations) as the point-and-shoot to take for things where the DSLR would be too big or at risk. The SW's are waterproof (the depths vary with the models), freeze proof, and crush proof. I really like the idea of a camera that is water proof - the one time I went snorkeling, I was really sore that I couldn't bring my camera with me. How neat would it be to just bring it down there with you? I'd love to buy a waterproof casing for my DSLR, but those things cost more than the camera itself...
I've never seen a waterproof case for a D-SLR... The lenses for my camera are of various lengths and widths - depending on the focal lengths, barrel, and etc. - and some can telescope as well. Are these cases meant for certain makes only?

The Olympus cameras look pretty good as well. Can you swap out and use a lens by, say, Tamron instead?
__________________
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!
LynnieS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-28, 13:42   Link #11
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
I've never seen a waterproof case for a D-SLR... The lenses for my camera are of various lengths and widths - depending on the focal lengths, barrel, and etc. - and some can telescope as well. Are these cases meant for certain makes only?
Yes, the cases are, unfortunately, specific to certain camera models. Here is the product page - note that the SP series cameras are their "DSLR-like" model line (the lens can't be changed) while the E-system cameras are the DSLRs.

Quote:
The Olympus cameras look pretty good as well. Can you swap out and use a lens by, say, Tamron instead?
Olympus cameras use what they call a "four-thirds mount system", which doesn't seem to get much love from third party lens makers. I know that Sigma has made some lenses fitting that, but I haven't found any from Tamron yet. Unfortunately, Sigma's 4/3 lenses seem to be even more expensive than Olympus'. If you used some of Olympus' OM system cameras, which I presume came before the E-system ones (maybe they were SLRs), Olympus does make a converter so that OM lenses can be used with the 4/3 system. I don't believe that there's a converter for the other standards, unfortunately.

From what I've read on other camera sites, Olympus lenses are quite good. I don't think that the prices are outrageous (unless you try going into anything higher than the lowest consumer-grade line), although they can't compare to some of the third party lenses out there. I'm actually looking into picking up one of their newly released 70-300mm lenses for wildlife photography. With their holiday rebate, it'd be just under $320. The next upgrade is to get their new 18-180mm to replace my 14-42mm and 40-150mm lenses...
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-28, 22:07   Link #12
Potatochobit
Certified Organic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
if you plan to use the picture in any type of 'real' graphic design work, it has to be an SLR type, and you can't get that 'mini-sized'

if you want to take a picture at your friend's house goofing around or maybe of your family at the mall, get any mini camera that has GOOD anti-shaking feature and memory (SD) card that you like.
because BLURRY pictures really suck.

I have an old optio-pentax and it is bad. dont know about new model mini's though.
__________________
*Retired*
Potatochobit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-29, 14:35   Link #13
Sides
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 32
The newer panasonic TZ-lumix series, with leica lenses, are actually pretty good. The dimensions are 105.0 x 59.2 x 36.7 mm, so it is slightly bigger than my mobile phone.

Only thing about those compact cameras is that they normally store the picture in compressed format.

Currently i have a lumix FZ18, for planned photo trips, and a K800i, for shot on the go.
Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.