# Which would you choose?



## 4W4K3 (Dec 14, 2004)

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=30-122-038&depa=7

http://www.bananapc.com/products/pr...7&product_id=12212&searchString=40211004&Op=2

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=30-120-161&depa=7

??? lol

my budget is max of ~$250, and i really dont want a huge/thick camera, run on AA batteries, tiny screen, or skeptical brand.

these 3 have big screens, snall form, li-on battery pack, and are major brands.


----------



## 4W4K3 (Dec 14, 2004)

No opinions guyz? I am leaning towards the Casio even if the LCD has less pixels...it still has amazing quality and looks better than the Fuji IMO. Plus the focus is better, and it has a few more options and better control layout i think.

EDIT: hmm...lol guess no one is interested in cameras now a days. I have decided on the Casio, and a 512MB Ultra II SD card. It's the fastest available right now i think and will hold alot of pics/fast enough to record live video no probs. Can't wait till i order it


----------



## Picklee (Dec 20, 2004)

I think the fujifilm it has .1 higher megapixel and .4 higher optical zoom. the casio is a nice name brand if your going for style though.


----------



## 4W4K3 (Dec 20, 2004)

Picklee said:
			
		

> I think the fujifilm it has .1 higher megapixel and .4 higher optical zoom. the casio is a nice name brand if your going for style though.



I believe i've decided on the Casio.

Main reasons:

Focus options: Contrast type AF (selectable between spot, multi); pan focus; macro mode; infinity mode; manual focus; focus lock
Video is pretty good (watched sample form review)

The Fuji only has 1 focusing option...kinda bad IMO. And the video is limited to a small size and low fps. If those were up to par and it looked a lil' better, Fuji all the way. But Casio i found for $250 and i think it will do me good for a first camera

Thnx for the feedback lol, i thought no one would respond.


----------



## Lorand (Dec 20, 2004)

I had bad experience with Fuji cameras, so I wouldn't recommend it.
Dunno about Casio, never tested one, but I'd rather buy the Canon Powershot.


----------



## Picklee (Dec 20, 2004)

lol no problem, the casio is probably more reliable anyways


----------



## 4W4K3 (Dec 20, 2004)

Lorand said:
			
		

> I had bad experience with Fuji cameras, so I wouldn't recommend it.
> Dunno about Casio, never tested one, but I'd rather buy the Canon Powershot.



well i have a question for you (well anyone really)

The shutter speed on the powershot is only 1500, and the Casio is 2000. So the bigger the # the better yes? It is faster so you can snap a picture more precisely without as much shutter lag and it will take a better picture? i think thats how it works.Besides that there are a few minor discremincies...

Also notice since i posted this, the price of the Powershot went up $50 lmao. I can't even afford it anymore.


----------



## Picklee (Dec 20, 2004)

lmao yea it did go up $50 thats too bad. yea the higher the shutter # the better (i'm pretty sure of that). but it looks like your going with the casio anyways lol


----------



## Lorand (Dec 20, 2004)

The 1/1500 s shutter speed is pretty fast. Look what you can do with it: see left image in http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=4618 (post #11)
Faster shutter requires more light or sensitivity (both cameras have ISO400 max), so faster than 1/1500 s can be used only in very bright sunshine. If there's not enough light, you could use bigger apperture, which reduces the clarity of the image.
The interesting thing with Powershot is the longest shutter speed, 15 s (instead of Casio's 4 s), so it's more suitable to take pictures of a static object in low light, or making some interesting effects (e.g. car light trails at night).


----------



## 4W4K3 (Dec 20, 2004)

Lorand said:
			
		

> The interesting thing with Powershot is the longest shutter speed, 15 s (instead of Casio's 4 s), so it's more suitable to take pictures of a static object in low light, or making some interesting effects (e.g. car light trails at night).



I didn't notice that, that's pretty kewl. But what is a "static object"? Do you mean something in motion? After a while im sure i will want to start to edit some pictures and mess around in Photoshop, i just have to learn first.


----------



## Lorand (Dec 20, 2004)

I meant an object that doesn't move. At long exposure time the photo would be unclear if the subject moves.


----------



## 4W4K3 (Dec 20, 2004)

Lorand said:
			
		

> I meant an object that doesn't move. At long exposure time the photo would be unclear if the subject moves.



oh ok i get it, that's what makes the car lights all swishy and what not. long exposure with a moving object.


----------

