Good Budget Digital Camera?

[LegendaryNBK]

Hi all,

I am new to WIS and would like to start taking decent wrist shots and other photos of my watches. I only have an iPhone right now and have a budget of about $150 for a point and shoot type camera. I recently bought a Nikon L26 to try and take some close up and wrist shots but that ended in epic failure and I returned the camera. My iPhone takes better photos then that Nikon did and the real problem was that all the photos were blurry or there was really bad reflections in the pictures. I have read that I should have probably went with something with an optical viewfinder along with the LCD screen so I can aim with the camera up close to my eye to minimize shaking and therefor blurring the shot. I am looking at the Canon Powershot A1300 or something with an optical viewfinder that fits my budget but I really am clueless if that is what I need or not.

Can anyone give me a suggestion on a camera that can take decent photos of my watches that fits into my budget? Thanks

BTW... Here is a sample of about the best I can currently do with my iPhone 4

[camb66]

More than your budget but I do not think you will get anything for $150 that will do much better than your i phone.A friend has one of these and I am super impressed.

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Review: Digital Photography Review

[Kasanova]

A Canon G12 or Nikon P7100 would be nice for you.

[asphericalperspective]

What other types of pictures are you looking to take?

A few notes as a photographer (and severe gear junkie):

1. The iPhone camera (especially the one in the new iPhone 4/4s) is extremely capable. Don't knock it.

2. Optical viewfinders (OVF) are gimmicks in low-end cameras. Even the Canon G12's OVF is a joke and that camera costs $400.

3. There are NO cameras under $400 I would recommend for anyone to buy. I just think it's a waste of money. They're tiny/bad sensors crammed into a body with just enough technology to be marketable. Get something like this for your iPhone instead: olloclip®

My normal camera systems (Leica, Canon, Hasselblad) all take a back seat to the olloclip when I'm just trying to snap some quick pictures when I'm having fun. And the macro lens in the olloclip set is great for watch pictures.

[LegendaryNBK]

3. There are NO cameras under $400 I would recommend for anyone to buy. I just think it's a waste of money. They're tiny/bad sensors crammed into a body with just enough technology to be marketable. Get something like this for your iPhone instead: olloclip®

My normal camera systems (Leica, Canon, Hasselblad) all take a back seat to the olloclip when I'm just trying to snap some quick pictures....

Thanks, the olloclip looks nice. My only issue with it is that I might not be keeping my iPhone for long, its the iPhone4 and is exactly 2 years old at the moment. I was kinda wanting to wait on the next iPhone to upgrade and that might be soon. If the olloclip will probably be compatible with the next iphone as well then I will definitely order. Until then I will just have to practice using the correct amount of light and other things that my camera has no control over. I have not bought a new camera and after reading the above I probably will not and just stick with the phone and hopefully the olloclip. Thanks to everyone for their help :)

[Bolaberlim]

3. There are NO cameras under $400 I would recommend for anyone to buy. I just think it's a waste of money.

I disagree, a panasonic GF3 is a very capable little camera, and probably around that price new with a kit lens. However if you want to maximize your money get a used Panasonic G2, a 14-42 lens, and you're good to go. Image quality is very good and the EVF is also a great addition- the gf3 has no viewfinder. I switched to m4/3 a while back and I'm more than happy. I went the olympus route, and you can find a Olympus E-pl1 at great prices too, and with added bonus it has in body image stabilization, but no viewfinder.

[ancient_mariner]

Canon Ixus 220 HS or 230 HS, US market names are ELPH300 HS and ELPH110 HS. It is a very capable and cheap pocket camera. I don't own those cameras but I've handled them and I recommended 220HS to my friend who bought it at 99 euros. Actually I am tempted to buy it myself too. If you are a casual snapper, my opinion is that you don't need a camera which costs several hundreds.

[asphericalperspective]

I disagree, a panasonic GF3 is a very capable little camera, and probably around that price new with a kit lens. However if you want to maximize your money get a used Panasonic G2, a 14-42 lens, and you're good to go. Image quality is very good and the EVF is also a great addition- the gf3 has no viewfinder. I switched to m4/3 a while back and I'm more than happy. I went the olympus route, and you can find a Olympus E-pl1 at great prices too, and with added bonus it has in body image stabilization, but no viewfinder.

Wooo, you may have got me there. Although I would argue that the Lumix GF3 is a M4/3 system camera. I mean sure if you get JUST the GF3 body and a signle pancake lens (or kit zoom) you can keep it MAYBE under $400 (before tax?), but if you get a GF3, you'll really want to get a combination of a zoom lens and maybe a prime or two. And then you'll definitely be over $400.

Also, I did not consider $400 in the second-hand/used market.

I actually very recently gave in and got a M4/3 camera too (Olympus OM-D E-M5). And I have to say, for someone who did not believe in the format before, I am now a very big fan.

[asphericalperspective]

Canon Ixus 220 HS or 230 HS, US market names are ELPH300 HS and ELPH110 HS. It is a very capable and cheap pocket camera. I don't own those cameras but I've handled them and I recommended 220HS to my friend who bought it at 99 euros. Actually I am tempted to buy it myself too. If you are a casual snapper, my opinion is that you don't need a camera which costs several hundreds.

I agree with you. I'm not really trying to say that there are no decent cameras under $400 (or maybe I am...) but what I really wanted to say was that given that price range, the iPhone (and other smartphone cameras) is a competitive alternative because a) P&S are supposed to be convenient, and what's more convenient than your phone? (Of course, I'm assuming if you already have a smartphone and carry it around with you) b) If you already have a smartphone, the additional costs will be $0 and most important c) the image quality will be comparable.

I have a few photo editing apps on my iPhone that I love to use. And Instagram is also a fun/easy way to explore photography (Yes, you hear correct, an actual photographer is endorsing Instagram :P ). A couple of apps will probably cost you $10 or so, and immediately you'll have a imaging device that trumps any sub-$400 camera. What an iPhone will lack in image-quality and ergonomics, it makes up with in convenience and the abundance of apps.

[Bolaberlim]

Wooo, you may have got me there. Although I would argue that the Lumix GF3 is a M4/3 system camera. I mean sure if you get JUST the GF3 body and a signle pancake lens (or kit zoom) you can keep it MAYBE under $400 (before tax?), but if you get a GF3, you'll really want to get a combination of a zoom lens and maybe a prime or two. And then you'll definitely be over $400.

Also, I did not consider $400 in the second-hand/used market.

I actually very recently gave in and got a M4/3 camera too (Olympus OM-D E-M5). And I have to say, for someone who did not believe in the format before, I am now a very big fan.

OM-D is DA BOMB!! :D

That camera packs some serious image muscle. I have an E-p3, 14-42 kit lens and I got the panny 14mm, simply because when looking through the exif data of my photos, I realized 90% were taken using the 14mm focal length, so now my wife's E-p2 uses the 14-42 and my E-p3 has the 14mm permanently attached. For the money I think I can't do any better than that small lens. It's amazing! Regarding the gf3 price, well, you can find it new under $400, and the reason is simple- it didn't sell well. People with GF1's were pissed that the GF2 was a downgrade, and the GF3 even a bigger downgrade regarding user control. So fans of the system dropped it and migrated to Oly or G2 or GH2 series, others just managed to hang on to their GF1's ( that have a higher sale value than a GF3) and waited for the GX1. In any case, the BEST deal out there has to be the E-pl1. It focuses slowly compared to SLR's, but image quality is AWESOME, price is dirt cheap ( I have one I got for $170 refurbished from OlympusMarket) and it features anything anyone non pro would ever want. With a 14-42 it can't be beat for value IMO.

I'm telling you, I sold my 40d, kept a 20d for a rainy day, sold all the lenses I had except a 18-55 IS for the 20d and haven't looked back. The only reason I don't sell the 20d is because it practically has no resale value, and I'm sentimentally attached to the bloody thing :) Also it produces great images and if I ever do need an SLR, it's there. But for now, I haven't missed it for one second. I suspect that if you keep using the OM-D, you'll have a hard time going back too! :) truth is, between an APS-C and a m4/3 the diference is almost non-existent (except at really high ISO) so it's FF or m4/3 for me. FF is expensive and heavy or REALLY EXPENSIVE and light (M9) so m4/3 it is!

And one more thing... both the Pen and OM-D are sexy!! When people see it... they're like -whoa can i see that??