My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 range)

I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

thanks for your help

In article .com,
wrote:

I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

thanks for your help

There are tons of cameras to consider. Check http://www.dpreview.com for
ideas or just stop by your favorite electronics store to see what's
available. Buy any of the name brands such as Sony, Casio, Canon, Nikon,
Pentax, or Olympus that offers the controls you want and that feels good
in your hands.

Remember your prey. Don't hunt buffalo with a BB gun. I would say first
and foremost get a camera with a good lens, Carl Zeiss, Canon. Optical
zoom vs. digital zoom, digital zoom is an optical illusion, how ironic
is that? My first digital camera had zero optical zoom and I kicked
myself more than a few times for foregoing that luxury. My current
camera has a twelve X optical zoom and is very practical for most of my
photography. Form follows function, i.e. do I need a compact or
possibly a bigger body would give me more versatility but less
spontaneity. megapixels, if you cant zoom in far enough and you have to
crop you will appreciate a higher megapixel camera, but the first time
you try to e-mail a 7M file to your friend w/dial up you will realize
the benefit of reducing file sizes for e-mail, while still retaining
your hi res originals for printing. dpreview.com has device specific
forums, reviews and example photograghy taken by actual users with the
actual products. After the purchase I recommend staying in touch with
the forums.dpreview.com for tips, tricks and advice for your specific
product and the situations you might encounter.
Happy hunting,
John
wrote:
I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

thanks for your help

silverthreads wrote:
Remember your prey. Don't hunt buffalo with a BB gun. I would say first
and foremost get a camera with a good lens, Carl Zeiss, Canon. Optical
zoom vs. digital zoom, digital zoom is an optical illusion, how ironic
is that? My first digital camera had zero optical zoom and I kicked
myself more than a few times for foregoing that luxury. My current
camera has a twelve X optical zoom and is very practical for most of my
photography. Form follows function, i.e. do I need a compact or
possibly a bigger body would give me more versatility but less
spontaneity. megapixels, if you cant zoom in far enough and you have to
crop you will appreciate a higher megapixel camera

Err. Isn't that EXACTLY the digital zoom
you call an "optical illusion" ?

BugBear

wrote in message
oups.com...
I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

thanks for your help



HP has the reverse Midas Touch. Everything they touch turns to sheisa.

thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
Canon or Casio this time around.


Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

thanks for your help

There are tons of cameras to consider. Check http://www.dpreview.com for
ideas or just stop by your favorite electronics store to see what's
available. Buy any of the name brands such as Sony, Casio, Canon, Nikon,
Pentax, or Olympus that offers the controls you want and that feels good
in your hands.

wrote in message
oups.com...
thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
Canon or Casio this time around.

I am also not happy with my HP products ... but am quite pleased with Canon
(if that helps).

On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, wrote:

I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.

The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
(about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.

I am on my first set of lithium AAs and I am about 300 pics with no
sign of diiminished battery life. The rechargeables the came with my
Sony H5 in August are only good for about 100 pics and when the battery
indicator starts to drop it isn't long before they are dead. I also
have four backup energizer rechargables that are about 1 year old and
have a very poor endurance and seem to drain in storage. I am very
curious to see how fast the lithium AAs drop off after the battery
indicator starts to indicate the first sign of drop off.
ASAAR wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, wrote:

I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.

The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
(about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.

My lithium batteries died at the X Prize Cup. I am very impressed with
the number of images I got using one set of lithium batteries. I was a
little dissapointed by the amount of warning I got when they started to
diminish. it went from full to a low battery indicator in a very short
amount of time.
silverthreads wrote:
I am on my first set of lithium AAs and I am about 300 pics with no
sign of diiminished battery life. The rechargeables the came with my
Sony H5 in August are only good for about 100 pics and when the battery
indicator starts to drop it isn't long before they are dead. I also
have four backup energizer rechargables that are about 1 year old and
have a very poor endurance and seem to drain in storage. I am very
curious to see how fast the lithium AAs drop off after the battery
indicator starts to indicate the first sign of drop off.
ASAAR wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, wrote:

I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.

The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
(about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.