If you’re thinking of buying someone a camera for the holidays, you should probably check out this round-up review from David Pogue of The New York Times.
David looks at 9 new models and likes much of what he sees:
You may have your holiday traditions: caroling, stockings, candles, whatever. But here at The New York Times Institute of Gadgetology, we have a tradition of our own. Every December since 2001, we’ve asked: “How much digital camera can you get for $300?”
For years, that low price pretty much guaranteed low picture quality. Camera makers spent all their effort groveling at the altar of megapixels, in hopes that the public would come to associate megapixels with picture quality.
But the manufacturers are finally turning their attention to features that really do help your photos, like image stabilization (reduces blur in low light) and face recognition (ensures proper focus and exposure on human subjects). They haven’t eliminated shutter lag (the delay before the picture is snapped) — you’ll have to buy one of those big digital single-lens reflex cameras for that luxury — but there’s some improvement this year.
I haven’t tried out any of the models that Pogue discusses here, but I bought a pocket-sized camera that cost slightly over $300 a few months back, and it certainly upholds Pogue’s main point. Small cameras with reasonable price tags finally take pretty good pictures.
My only quibble with my camera a Sony DSC T100 is one that Pogue mentions several times in his reviews. It takes great photos in daylight and even in brightly lit rooms but it struggles in low-light conditions. The pictures aren’t terrible, but they aren’t as sharp as I’d like and the colors are a little off.
My conclusion: If you take a lot of photos in low lights — perhaps when you’re out clubbing with your friends — you may want to spring for a bulky SLR or wait for smaller cameras to improve more. Otherwise, buy now with confidence.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Entries (RSS)