I'm looking to buy small digital camera. I 'm interested in sony t-7. Any other brands I should look into? My budget is varied , about $400 or under sound perfect. I just want something that is able to carry around in purse/pocket. Please suggest. Thank you

11/1/2005 8:11:32 PM

Canon s500

Can't go wrong with a canon.

11/1/2005 8:21:03 PM

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1172

thoes are kinda cute.. 4.0" W x 2.0" H x 1.4" D

cheapish too.. 150 aint bad for a 5mp

edit: however, http://www.dynamism.com/cubik/index.shtml is the smallest digicam.. quality is shit though..

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 10:52 PM. Reason : cubik]

11/1/2005 10:49:28 PM

canon sd400

11/1/2005 10:54:11 PM

thank you for your suggestion, keep coming

I just found two choices I really like, but their features are . Let me know what do you think.



pro : i like it
con : only builtin 32mb and $300






Pro : more realistic to use, 3.1 ounces and measures just 3.7 x 1.5 x 0.8 inches, 4 megapixel image sensor and Carl Zeiss optics. $350
Con : dunno (maybe expensive compared to feature) and I 'm in love with m3 replica

11/1/2005 11:21:26 PM

http://www.dynamism.com/cubik/index.shtml




[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ;]

11/1/2005 11:25:15 PM

a little bigger but a real full-featured camera
i love my casio exilim

11/1/2005 11:29:40 PM

11/1/2005 11:51:22 PM

I've had my Canon SD200 over a year and I love it.

Fits in any back pocket, easy to sneak into concerts, great photo quality and built like a tank.

11/2/2005 12:12:31 AM

when i posted s500 i meant sd500 not s500. i forgot i have the s400 which is the slightly bigger and older 4mp while my bro has the sd500 which is smaller and 5mp. very very nice camera fits in your pocket, purse or where ever you want.

11/2/2005 12:17:55 AM

^the sd500 is a 7mp, the sd400 is the 5mp. Then they also have the sd550 and sd450, which are still 7 and 5 mp, respectively, the difference is that the 50's have a 2.5" LCD rather than a 2"

11/2/2005 8:27:15 AM

i'd end up leaving a tiny one like those in my pants pocket and then do laundry

11/2/2005 8:40:01 AM

Quote :

"canon sd400 "

/thread

11/2/2005 8:51:46 AM

If I were shopping, I'd get the Canon A520 or perhaps one of the new A610 or A620s. But, those are all probably larger than you had in mind.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/

11/2/2005 10:07:18 AM

I have an S400... (older 4MP elph) and its awesome... its bigger than the newer ones but I can still cary it around in my pocket without anyproblems... like everyone else said "BUILT LIKE A TANK"

I've dropped it a couple of times (on rug covered hardwood) and it hasn't affected it yet

people don't typically need anything more than a 2MP camera... which has native resolution of 1600x1200 (could be wrong) which is perfect for viewing pictures on your computer and posting them on the web... thats all I do with mine...

now if you want to print them, its another story, but I typically only end up printing the 1600x1200 version anyways but I'll conceed that higher MP deffinitly come out better when printed... but I rarely print pictures in todays electronic age

11/2/2005 5:28:10 PM

I just got a Canon SD400, and so far it's pretty good. I'm still figuring out all the options it has. It doesn't have as much features as the Canon A85 I used to have, but it's a whole lot smaller. I never really use those features anyway.

11/2/2005 7:42:32 PM

^^the main reason why most people need a lot higher than 2mp is because they suck at taking photos and it comes in handy when you have the added res. to crop and take smaller parts of a photo.

oh and print. 2mp look like total ass monkeys on 4x6 prints

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 7:45 PM. Reason : fda]

11/2/2005 7:44:41 PM