Ultracompact Digital Cameras

[jsaure]

Can anyone suggest a really good ultracompact digital camera? I'm going to e3 and my trusty old G3 is just too bulky for the action. As such it will be used mostly indoors with low lighting. TIA

[AJLumantao]

Hmmn? A good ultra compact with all concerns factored in (price, megapixel count, manual functions, etc.). Gonna be hard call. I personally like Nikon's Coolpix line for their ease of use, bang for the back, features, et cetera but they're not as cheap here compared to the prices in Japan. It's like nine thousand bucks gets poured to the camera when it reaches our shores. The Coolpix 5200's nice and I think it'd make a good compact for you. But that's just me. I'm cheap!

[HooHaw]

Sony's new T7? Canon's new Ixus 7mp.

[PatrickGaerlan]

What's your budget? How many megapixels are you looking at? I would think 3-5 megapixels for an ultracompact would be ok.

[AJLumantao]

Yea I agree. Don't get blinded by the Megapixel factor. It certainly is just a Marketing ploy. It's because of the small focusing area e. Limited space on an ultra compact limits quality prints. Small sensors pa!

[penmanila]

i'm very happy with my 4-megapixel casio exilim--cheap, superslim, and great screen. great shots, too, for most purposes.

[AJLumantao]

I wasn't at all impressed at the Exilim series since they weren't that fast for my tastes. My bestfriend could appeal to that too.

But for it's low price-point, pwede na rin. May dock pang kasama!

[penmanila]

how fast is fast, and what are we clocking? one of the things i liked about the exilim (coming from a canon ixus) was that it was ready to fire in no time at all (about a sec, actually)--and its battery life, i forgot to add, is pretty phenomenal. its slimness allows me to leave it in my pants or coat pocket.

my own "tastes" are simple and they have to be, since i'm a photojournalist more than anything when i have to use my camera on the road, doing travelogues, interviews, and such; portability and ease of use--and reasonable crispness of images--are important above all, beyond the quality of individual images. i take pictures that will look reasonably good when i reduce them to something like 50K and send them over the internet for reproduction in next week's newspaper.

but to each his own, folks depends on what you need and what you do. forget the specs, maybe, and do an hands-on test of these thingies, then see what your budget can get you.

[AJLumantao]

I'm referring to the speed in-between shots. It takes a good time to save the bestest quality picture. Sides, that's what I've noticed with Exilim users and from my hands-on test.

I felt confused (the exilim I think is a 7.2MP model) since the IT Manager in my mom's office in Indonesia was trying to take my picture and it took him such a long time to do so. And so me and a Taiwanese co-worker of my mom were grinning due to his camera's speed. She asked why his camera took such a long time to get my picture and the Indonesian IT dude was dedma.

Maybe it's due to the user also.

Since you're a photojournalist a need for a such a speedy camera is not really a constraint.

Casio Exilims are real slim. Let's give credit to where credit is due.

[jsaure]

I've had a positive experience with Casio digital cameras as well. My first was a 2.1MP that was incredibly user-friendly. However, it was best used outdoors in daylight. I'd love to see an amateur indoor shot of the new Exilims.

As for budget, I'm willing to spend up to $400. I'm not as concerned with MP count as I am with image quality. I remember getting a 5MP Minolta few years back and the images weren't that great.