Cheapest good quality digital camera? Please help.

DeviousAngel

I have a Vivitar Vivicam 3632 2.0 megapixel camera but I was trying to join some modeling site where I have to send in my own pictures so I really need to have something that takes really clear pictures... but I would prefer something under $200... are there actually any good 4.0 or 5.0 megapixel cameras that cheap? I want something that's going to take clear pictures...no fuzziness. I saw one cheap online--- $150. A Concord 4-MP Eye-Q 4060AF Digital Camera. Is this camera any good? If not, which ones are? Or am I going to have to pay $300-400 for a good quality camera?
Please let me know something...thanks!

DoctorIt

DeviousAngel wrote:

I have a Vivitar Vivicam 3632 2.0 megapixel camera but I was trying to join some modeling site where I have to send in my own pictures so I really need to have something that takes really clear pictures... but I would prefer something under $200... are there actually any good 4.0 or 5.0 megapixel cameras that cheap? I want something that's going to take clear pictures...no fuzziness. I saw one cheap online--- $150. A Concord 4-MP Eye-Q 4060AF Digital Camera. Is this camera any good? If not, which ones are? Or am I going to have to pay $300-400 for a good quality camera?
Please let me know something...thanks!

With cameras, for the most part, you're going to get what you pay for. I'd be very skeptical of a 4mp camera for $150.

BUT, you said you are sending in your own pictures to a site? If you mean sending in pics to be posted on the web, 4mp is almost too much. With typical screen resolutions and sizes you'll have to crop your image anyway, so 4mp will essentially be too much. Get a better quality 3mp camera. There are several out there from good names like Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji. Check out http://www.dpreview.com. I think everyone here would endorse them for good reviews on cameras.

DarkRubiTJ

My $0.02 worth.

When I buy a camera I look at optical quality rather than megapixels. Optical quality is going to dictate the the quailty of the shot rather than the megapixel count. Are the lens elements glass or plastic? Is it equipped with an adjustable aperture? Most leneses work better at something other than maximum F/Stop. In my experience one manufactuers camera against another with the same specs will take visually better pictures than another because of lens quailty.

Next what is the target sites image requirements? Will they allow you to post a 4 megapixel file. Most sites that I am aware of don't allow files that large. If they only allow a 1meg file you are going to have to Jpeg your file down to that size and lose image quailty in the process. Is the camera only for posting to this particular web site, or are you also going to use the shots in your portfolio? If you're going for the particular site, taylor your camera equipiment decisions to their requirements. If it's for general use buy for your requirements and fit the files to what they need. Veiwing files on the web is much different than printing files for veiwing on the wall.

Look at the name brand manufactuers products in your price range, ie. Canon, Nikon,Olympus, Minolta, Sony. 99% of the time they have a quailty lens with some adjustability. Also check your local suppliers they might have a demo or last years model that you can get on the cheap and get more bang for the buck.

Tuesday

DeviouAngel:

This is unrelated to your question, but you wouldn't happen to live in Florida would you?

:tuesday

wxwax

BPearce

DeviousAngel wrote:

I have a Vivitar Vivicam 3632 2.0 megapixel camera but I was trying to join some modeling site where I have to send in my own pictures so I really need to have something that takes really clear pictures... but I would prefer something under $200... are there actually any good 4.0 or 5.0 megapixel cameras that cheap? I want something that's going to take clear pictures...no fuzziness. I saw one cheap online--- $150. A Concord 4-MP Eye-Q 4060AF Digital Camera. Is this camera any good? If not, which ones are? Or am I going to have to pay $300-400 for a good quality camera?
Please let me know something...thanks!

Might I suggest that you look at Panasonic cameras with Leica lenses. I use the 2mp FZ1 with 12X optical zoom and IS. It is more than you want to pay, but is well worth the difference if you need zoom and IS. There are all kinds of Panasonic cameras with Leica lenses in your price range.
Don't get caught up in the MP hullabaloo, all most people need for family photos is 2mp. Look at the lens and go for quality there.-Bobby

komet

So it's lens over MP? Correct? Well, other than lens...and all things being equal...a 5MP should produce better results than a 3MP....is this a correct analogy?

wxwax

komet wrote:

So it's lens over MP? Correct? Well, other than lens...and all things being equal...a 5MP should produce better results than a 3MP....is this a correct analogy?

Maybe. The difference might only show up if you were making prints... and maybe even then only if you were making larger prints. Quite conceivable that you couldn't tell the difference on the web.

komet

wxwax wrote:

Maybe. The difference might only show up if you were making prints... and maybe even then only if you were making larger prints. Quite conceivable that you couldn't tell the difference on the web.

Why?

gus

Good to see you are finally over here komet. How about throwing up some of those Naval ship pics you took a year or so ago. They were great !

wxwax

komet wrote:

Why?

Because pics for the web only need 72 dots per square inch. That's all the monitor can show you. Pics for printing need upwards of 200. That's a big difference.

cmr164

wxwax wrote:

Because pics for the web only need 72 dots per square inch. That's all the monitor can show you. Pics for printing need upwards of 200. That's a big difference.

I can't resist busting your chops on that answer. Do you want to find the silly error or should I add insult to injury by pointing it out. The not so silly error can wait.

wxwax

Fire away. Am I mxing up pixels and dpi? Feel free to post the truth... it'll edumacate me.

cmr164

wxwax wrote:

Fire away. Am I mxing up pixels and dpi? Feel free to post the truth... it'll edumacate me.

You said 72 pixels per square inch when you meant to say 72 pixels per inch. The latter is 5184 pixels per square inch which is a wee bit of a diff

The not so silly mistake is that monitors actually vary quite a bit. A 17inch 1280x1024 monitor has a higher dpi than a 21inch 1280x1024 monitor. Figure a ball park range to be 72-120 dpi with a few exceptions outside that range.

wxwax

fish

cmr164 wrote:

You said 72 pixels per square inch when you meant to say 72 pixels per inch. The latter is 5184 pixels per square inch which is a wee bit of a diff

The not so silly mistake is that monitors actually vary quite a bit. A 17inch 1280x1024 monitor has a higher dpi than a 21inch 1280x1024 monitor. Figure a ball park range to be 72-120 dpi with a few exceptions outside that range.

but he said it with such authority and conviction! That's gotta count for something.