nikon coolpix 5600 5.1 MP for $158 shipped (plus about a $7 256MB card after a rebate)

http://www.edealinfo.com/cgi-bin/dl?2006/02/21/119.shtml

or

nikon coolpix s1 5.1 MP for $208 shipped plus 256 MB card free

http://www.edealinfo.com/cgi-bin/dl?2006/02/21/025.shtml

2/24/2006 4:28:53 PM

ok or polaroid pdc 5355 5MP for about $120 total

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000B640LI/ref=nosim/104-4749750-2082369?n=502394

2/24/2006 4:50:44 PM

a handy site to help u: http://www.dpreview.com/

2/24/2006 6:46:13 PM

i'm stealing this thread. i want decent images & something small. thats key, something tiny i can shove into my pocket. i plan on buying a sony DSC-T5. if this is a dumb idea, proceed to talk me out of it.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7271089&type=product&productCategoryId=cat15197&id=1117178280894

2/24/2006 10:49:17 PM

The S1 is a lot more portable (easy to slide into a pocket)...so really they aren't that comparable.

If you want more manual control go with 5600, if you're more just point-and-shoot and let the camera handle everything else then go with the S1.

2/24/2006 10:55:20 PM

panasonic lumix dmc-fz30...best non-slr ever...and i got it for around $425

2/24/2006 10:59:24 PM

If you want a slim camera, get the canon sd450, it's kickass.

2/25/2006 1:31:12 AM

ok i read crappy things about both cameras. i think i might have decided on a kodak C360. my last camera (before it got stolen at a party...bastards) was a kodak and i really liked it. i'm just looking for something smaller and better quality now

2/25/2006 11:24:29 AM

kodak's are fine if you really only care about ease of use. they take pretty decent pictures, but by no means is that C360 worth $250. The lag time btw pressing the shutter and actually taking the picture is probably greater with kodak than any other major camera brand. casio, canon, and panasonic would be my recommendations for small/slim cameras.

2/25/2006 1:15:43 PM

stick with Canon. id say check out the SD450

2/25/2006 1:40:01 PM

i have a Sony T5 and love it...go for it...only problem is the lens cover can slide open in your pocket, so you might want to get a slim case to slip it in and help prevent that. picture quality is fantastic and the zeiss zoom is great

2/25/2006 3:06:07 PM

i have a sony dsc-p200 which is a 7.2 megapixel camera. it is awesome and definitely the best camera i have ever used. the pic quality is insane and with the amount of options, u can easily do anythin with it.

these were taken back in june when i got the camera. to help loading times, i had reduced the resolution some:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bjklos/

[Edited on February 25, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : link]

2/25/2006 3:13:04 PM

whats with the goofy timestamp on all your pictures??

2/25/2006 4:27:31 PM

that was the day i got the camera and i was so happy that i just went out and took pics not turnin the timestamp off.

2/25/2006 4:35:54 PM

^Those pictures are not that good.


Oh, NCSUJen07, if you're seriously thinking about buying a Polaroid camera, you should be punched in the throat. They are fucking terrible..

2/25/2006 7:05:03 PM

are u fuckin kiddin me? the pics had to be reduced in size for internet loading times and viewing, otherwise u wouldnt be able to see the whole damn pic on screen. but continue to talk out ur ass, that's fine.

2/25/2006 7:06:48 PM

it might have a lot of options, but you should get some practice using them.
the size of the pictures has absolutely nothing to do with composition and lighting and other artistic factors.

anyone can have a great camera and still take subpar pictures.
If you're going to recommend a camera on the virtue of it's "options" and are going to link to pics taken with them, you should be able to show
1) that you can/do use them
2) "normal" pictures vs. those taken with these options you call special, so that she can evaluate how important they are to her. she might not know the name of a feature, but recognize it as something she'll use and appreciate.

2/25/2006 7:57:07 PM

yes i understand that christine but the day those pics were taken was the day i got the camera and did no messing around with options/settings. for coming stock, the pic quality is damn good with good detailing. like i said, the detailing is lost a bit on the resize, but nonetheless the pic quality is still much better than what i have seen with comparible cameras. i've gotten plenty of practice with the camera since havin it for ~8 months now. i was merely showing what the camera could do right out of the box.

2/25/2006 8:35:10 PM

I'd recommend the Canon SD550, its a little bigger than the Sony cameras but its easier to hold and seems less apt to break. Still pocket sized. If you just want the smallest decent quality camera, go with the Sony. Dont buy a Polaroid or Kodak camera. Both Polaroid and Kodak are (were) film companies, if you want a good camera, buy one from a company with a history of making good cameras because the optics are just as important as the imaging sensor. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Konica, Olympus, all have a history of making good cameras.

2/26/2006 7:35:39 AM

that sony dsc-p200 is on sale for $269 at BB right now

nice small camera that takes good pictures

2/28/2006 1:04:44 AM