Need a new camera

    I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
included pictures)

   I need something that is:

1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution

2) has an actual viewfinder to look through

3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more

4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
    (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
     use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)

5) under $200

   Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
for, but nothing that meets all of these.  We are getting pretty close
to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
couple weeks for a potential deal.

   For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
specs above?  Thanks!

 
Take a look at the Fuji FinePix S1000fd.  It's the only one out there
I know of that meets all of your criteria.  But, as a serious amateur
photographer I personally wouldn't recommend it, especially if you're
trying to produce publication quality photos.  It gets very mixed
reviews in terms of reliability and build quality.  I've had one in my
hands and think it's pretty junky.  There's more to picture quality
than resolution.  The optics are much more important.

To get something that meets all of your criteria you're going to have
to at least double, or maybe triple your budget.  If you're actually
making money from your writing it's a deductible expense, so why not
buy a good one?

The markup on digital cameras isn't that much.  It's not very likely
you're going to find anything with these specs, within your budget, in
a Black Friday sale unless it's a door buster with only a hand full
available that will require you to camp out overnight to have a shot
at one.

 OhioGuy wrote:

  What exactly are your publishers asking for?

  Only SLR's have an "actual" view finder that shows the actual (or
close to it) image. None are in the $200 range. A digital view screen
should work well enough for you.


   That's a lot of zoom, why do you need that. Are you taking pictures
from far away?

   Unless I miss my guess, what you really need is some form of macro.
Most macros don't work at full zoom.

   But, what you really need in a camera is different than what you've
asked about.

   Key features in a "real" camera:

   1) Ability to control exposure. Ideally you should be able to control
exposure in 1/3 f stops.

   2) Ability to control depth of field. Typically this means
controlling f stop. In a small camera this would be from f2.8 to f8 in
1/2 stop increments. Look for an "aperture" priority setting. You don't
want a camera that only has automatic features. Usually you'll  see an
"A" for aperture priority and a "T" for time priority. Look for another
camera if it doesn't have that as a minimum.

   3) Ability to control focus. This may just be an indication of where
the focus is set to. If it is not where you want, you can recompose.

   That is what you really need to control the picture. There are
cameras with high megapixels that are essentially worthless because they
don't allow you to set any of those. You'll also want a camera that is
ergonomically easy enough to use that you don't have to drill through
menus to get to that.

   I can alway recommend Cannon but not all Cannons have those features.
If you get a AA operated camera, go buy a set of NiMh rechargeables to
go with it. About $20 with charger. Alkalines won't last long. More
expensive cameras will have a LiIon battery.

   Jeff

 

OhioGuy wrote:

I've gone through probably a dozen digital cameras. The battery usage
has often been very bad. It is so bad on an HP I have that I rigged up
lithium ion batteries with a greater capacity and voltage to run it
properly.  Then I switched to Canon. The "A" series Canon was designed
for alkaline batteries. They also allow rechargeable types. I take
pictures every day. I can be assured of taking over 100 pictures over
a few days without a problem. The book says 400+ on a charge. I just
recharge them based on a time basis every few weeks. So I recommend
Canon. They have models using four AA cells as you wanted. The high
level of zoom you seek is probably not going to happen for that $200
price. There are reasons for that too. Unless you use a tripod, even
the anti-shake won't prevent some fuzzy pictures at that level of
zoom. In such cases you are better off taking pictures with less zoom
and cropping them on your computer. I suggest at least 4X optical
zoom, but more is not really helpful unless you plan to use a tripod.

Partly off topic, I also have an old Sony Mavica that takes pictures
on a floppy disk. The run time on the battery is over two hours
continuous operation. The pictures are only about about 75kb
(640X480) so that's a problem. The big advantage is that it has a 10X
optical zoom and a 1/4000 speed lens. Those zoomed pictures are very
clear. No tripod is needed. If I were not stuck on Canon, I would
consider something more modern from Sony because of their superior
engineering.

 
I agree your assessment of battery life, Al.  I use a Canon Powershot
that takes two AA batteries as my walking around camera.  I don't
shoot as much as you, and don't bother with rechargeables.  I use
lithium batteries.  They seem expensive, but I get as many shots from
a pair of them, as six or eight alkalines.  The down side is that
they're designed to put out full power over their entire life.  The
low battery warning doesn't work; they don't get "weak".  When they
die you go from fully charged batteries for one shot, and your camera
is a paper weight for the next.  After they've been in the camera for
a while you have to have a spare set handy.