My digital camera crapped out...what should I get now?
 

I've been using a Nikon Coolpix S200 for the past year. The only thing it really had going for it was compactness.

90% of the photos I take are indoors when the lighting sucks and often at close range. Mostly because I have no desire to build a light box (or tent) to take photos of knives, guns, swords, etc.

The rest of the time I use the camera on vacations etc. to snap photos of my son.

I've been thinking of a DSLR (not a camera body--something with an integrated lens) because the compactness doesn't really matter to me.

What does matter:

Excellent low-light handling
Autofocus that actually works
Good battery life
$400 max

I put it to you, Pelicans....anyone have suggestions? I've browsed thru DigitalCameraReview.com but frankly there's an overabundance of data on there. It just makes my decision more difficult.

Anybody have a camera that you absolutely LOVE?

i highly recommend the pansonic lumix fz-50- i have had mine for 2 years
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ50/FZ50A.HTM

your going to have a hard time finding a digital camera that takes "excellent" low light photos without flash.

Subscribed. My Nikon Coolpix P1 blows.

I need something for taking pics of 911 parts and T-shirts, so a mix of lighting.

Greatly miss my old Canon Powershot S230, but was dropped one too many times while hiking.

Have also been looking at cameras, check out the Canon SX110IS, compact, 10x optical, under $300.

Nikon D-40 is a nice digital SLR camera for the money. I have the D-50 (not made anymore) and it takes awesome pictures and the battery last a long time. When you click the shutter button, there is no delay. The price is within your range.

Here's a writeup

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

I just picked up a Kodak Z710. It's currently the LOW end of the Z line. The higher end ones are impressive.

Even mine has 10x zoom, low light capable, low light focusing, image stabilization, center and zone weighting focus, full manual mode, ISO choice...essentially it's a DSLR without the things that make an SLR camera an SLR ;)

It's also easily half the size and weight of something like the Nikon D40, which makes it easy to work with.

Recently got one of these. Canon G-9. I love it. Closer to $500 though

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1223043470.jpg

Love our Canon. It has served us very well through 2 years and 2 vacations around the world without a hicup. Great photos from such a small format. It think ours is an SD650 Digital Elph.

Do you want/need to shoot raw format? Do you prefer smaller or larger? Do you print your photos and if so how large? Is having full manual control important to you?

D40.

I have this Panasonic DMC-TZ4S- http://images.panasonic.com/static/models/dmc-tz4s.jpg

It has the 10x optical zoom which is nice - low light pictures it takes well.

I've been very happy with it -

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1223049005.jpg

Sorry Jeremy, I couldn't resist. :D

do you need "super zoom"? What types of subjects do you want to shoot? Are you willing to change lenses?

I have a D50 and love it. I suggest the Nikon DSLR in the price range you can afford.

check out a d40 nikon

Q: Do you want/need to shoot raw format?
A: No, as long as the jpg compression doesn't suck
Q: Do you prefer smaller or larger?
A: Doesn't matter
Q: Do you print your photos and if so how large?
A: No
Q: Is having full manual control important to you?
A: No, as long as the auto features don't make a mishmash of my photos
Q: do you need "super zoom"?
A: No
Q: What types of subjects do you want to shoot?
A: Like I said above, mostly interior close up stuff with no additional lighting. The rest of the time it's just outdoor shots of my son being a 3-year-old.
Q: Are you willing to change lenses?
A: I'd prefer not to...one more thing to drop/lose/pay for.

I personally wouldn't go with a DSLR - your needs don't necessitate going there, and doing low light macro will require a different lens (ie more $$$).

I had great luck with a Canon SD430 digital elph. Whatever the current iteration of that would likely do what you need. I don't care for the Nikon p&s cameras. Seems like ideally what you need is a fast lens, decent macro, and shake reduction. If I had $500 burning a hole in my pocket I'd buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-LX3K-Digital-Stabilized-Black/dp/B001CCLBSA/ref=pd_cp_p_1?pf_rd_p=413862901&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001CCNDK4&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIK X0DER&pf_rd_r=1TQSED415H04N06WKA2D

Very fast lens (2.0 at the wide end), decent macro, image stabilization, will shoot 16x9, 3x2 and 4x3, and also will do HD video capture. I have the previous generation of this camera (Leica variant) and have been quite happy with it. It isn't perfect, but no camera is.

I think you're screwed with "excellent low-light handling" with just about any point and shoot camera. With the small sensor they have and the excessive megapixels they put in there for marketing purposes, high- ISO performance suffers. I'd suggest going for the Nikon D40 as well. You'll get a kit lens that is way better than it deserves to be, better everything, and the ability to shoot RAW and adjust the white balance (which I suspect you'll need to do). It won't hurt you that the lens can be changed.

One reason I like the LX3 is that they did NOT increase the mp count, but instead focused on the noise and iq issues. That being said a P&S will not compete in a pixel peep with a DSLR. However given that he's not going to print large one needs to consider usability and convenience. There are lots of times that I just don't want to hassle with my dslr.

I personally like the look of the small sensor, but it depends on the application. For web photos and small prints most would be hard pressed to tell the difference between dslr and p&s. P&S also gives DOF that can make things easier, and image stabilization can be a BIG deal.

For vacation my favorite has been a waterproof olympus. No worries at the beach, pool, water parks. Kids love taking pictures in the pool.