Best camera under $400- Olympus C-765 Ultra Zoom?

Hi, I'm looking for the best digital camera I can buy under $400, can
anyone recommend one? In the Nov 2004 issue of Consumer Reports the
Olympus C-765 seems to be one of the best. It's advantages are 10x
optical zoom. I only need a 4 megapixel camera, any more is not
necessary. I would like one with at least 8X optical zoom.

The battery on the Olympus C-765 lasts 2 hours which is ok, but some
of the disadvantages with this camera is that it doesn't take double
AA batteries which I would like, in case your somewhere and then your
rechargable battery runs out and you'd wish you could just buy a
couple of double AA's somewhere to keep taking pictures. The other
disadvantage is no image stabilization which I would like. Can anyone
recommend at least a good 8X camera with image stabilization under
$400? Also, one that is not too big and bulky. Thanks for any help.

Looks like your looking for an FZ10, 12X optimal zoom with image
stabilization and 4 magapixels. Comparing pictures from both the FZ10 and
C765 the FZ10 did much better in comparison.
http://www.seanet.com/~pgm/panasonic/?s=pgm

You can also look at the FZ20, (an upgrade from the FZ10 with 5 megapixels)
but it will run you a bit over $400. With an 8X zoom an image stabilization
is almost a necessity unless you want to carry a tripod around. The FZ10 &
FZ20 are also a little bigger than the C765 but not that terrible much.
"Buck" wrote in message
...
Hi, I'm looking for the best digital camera I can buy under $400, can
anyone recommend one? In the Nov 2004 issue of Consumer Reports the
Olympus C-765 seems to be one of the best. It's advantages are 10x
optical zoom. I only need a 4 megapixel camera, any more is not
necessary. I would like one with at least 8X optical zoom.

The battery on the Olympus C-765 lasts 2 hours which is ok, but some
of the disadvantages with this camera is that it doesn't take double
AA batteries which I would like, in case your somewhere and then your
rechargable battery runs out and you'd wish you could just buy a
couple of double AA's somewhere to keep taking pictures. The other
disadvantage is no image stabilization which I would like. Can anyone
recommend at least a good 8X camera with image stabilization under
$400? Also, one that is not too big and bulky. Thanks for any help.

Buck wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for the best digital camera I can buy under $400, can
anyone recommend one? In the Nov 2004 issue of Consumer Reports the
Olympus C-765 seems to be one of the best. It's advantages are 10x
optical zoom. I only need a 4 megapixel camera, any more is not
necessary. I would like one with at least 8X optical zoom.

The 770 (very slightly upmarket of the 765) was one of my final
candidates when I chose a new camera last year. It was nice and compact,
looked and felt good, was simple to use, gave good images, and had a
pretty versatile lens, but the lack of IS was a problem given the amount
of long-zoom or low-light photography I do.

couple of double AA's somewhere to keep taking pictures. The other
disadvantage is no image stabilization which I would like. Can anyone
recommend at least a good 8X camera with image stabilization under
$400? Also, one that is not too big and bulky. Thanks for any help.

If you can't afford a Konica-Minolta A series or a Panasonic FZ-20 (I'm
not sure what US prices are these days), have a look at the K-M Z-series or
the Panasonic FZ-4 or FZ-5. Less versatile and flexible than their
"big brothers"...

Or, wait for Canon to replace the S1 IS... which is cheap, but only has
3 megapixels.

pete
--
"Send lawyers, guns and money...."

Thanks for your suggestions. I can't find the Panasonic FZ10 almost
anywhere and the two places that carry it have it at $450. The
Konica-Minolta Z3 looks good, it is 4 megapixels, has 12 optical zoom
with image stabilization, and also accepts double AA's. The only bad
thing is Consumer Reports rates the Konica Z2 with "Very Good" picture
quality as opposed to "Excellent" with many of the other cameras, so
it seems like it's a notch below the others. I don't know if this
would also apply to the Z3.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:04:01 +0000, Pete Fenelon
wrote:

Buck wrote:
Hi, I'm looking for the best digital camera I can buy under $400, can
anyone recommend one? In the Nov 2004 issue of Consumer Reports the
Olympus C-765 seems to be one of the best. It's advantages are 10x
optical zoom. I only need a 4 megapixel camera, any more is not
necessary. I would like one with at least 8X optical zoom.

The 770 (very slightly upmarket of the 765) was one of my final
candidates when I chose a new camera last year. It was nice and compact,
looked and felt good, was simple to use, gave good images, and had a
pretty versatile lens, but the lack of IS was a problem given the amount
of long-zoom or low-light photography I do.

couple of double AA's somewhere to keep taking pictures. The other
disadvantage is no image stabilization which I would like. Can anyone
recommend at least a good 8X camera with image stabilization under
$400? Also, one that is not too big and bulky. Thanks for any help.

If you can't afford a Konica-Minolta A series or a Panasonic FZ-20 (I'm
not sure what US prices are these days), have a look at the K-M Z-series or
the Panasonic FZ-4 or FZ-5. Less versatile and flexible than their
"big brothers"...

Or, wait for Canon to replace the S1 IS... which is cheap, but only has
3 megapixels.

pete

Buck wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions. I can't find the Panasonic FZ10 almost
anywhere and the two places that carry it have it at $450.

The FZ-10 is obsolete now, and has been replaced by the FZ-20. You'll
only find old stock! Of course, an FZ-10 on Ebay would meet your needs
perfectly - 4 megapixels, 35-420mm zoom, and lovely Leica glass.

The
Konica-Minolta Z3 looks good, it is 4 megapixels, has 12 optical zoom
with image stabilization, and also accepts double AA's. The only bad
thing is Consumer Reports rates the Konica Z2 with "Very Good" picture
quality as opposed to "Excellent" with many of the other cameras, so
it seems like it's a notch below the others. I don't know if this
would also apply to the Z3.

(please don't top post)

The K-M Z range isn't as good as the A range (there's no point in
it being; K-M can get a premium for the increased quality and use Zs for
point'n'shoot photographers or as a taster for the more expensive
cameras) - or (IMHO) the Panasonic or Olympus cameras of comparable
zoom. But they're about the cheapest way of getting long zoom and
stabilisation...

pete
--
"Send lawyers, guns and money...."

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:04:01 +0000, Pete Fenelon
wrote:

If you can't afford a Konica-Minolta A series or a Panasonic FZ-20 (I'm
not sure what US prices are these days), have a look at the K-M Z-series or
the Panasonic FZ-4 or FZ-5. Less versatile and flexible than their
"big brothers"...

By the way the FZ-4 and FZ-5 look good but they're no where to be
found. Do you know how much they cost or any places that carry them?

What about the Fuji FinePix s5100? It is 4M pixel and has 10X optical
zoom. It does not have image stabilization though. B & H has them for
$284. I also think you want to consider part of your price the cost of
a large memory card. Or, if you are considering something that uses a
custom battery, the cost of an extra battery. I was reading the reviews
on the s5100 on Steves Digicams site. One thing I noted was that the
flash seemed strong and illuminated up to 16 feet for indoor pics. I
know my canon 330 powershot does not do to well indoors if your like
over 9 feet or so away. I think I read the Canon S1-IS is a little weak
on the indoor photos, but it does have image stabilization.

Roger wrote:
over 9 feet or so away. I think I read the Canon S1-IS is a little weak
on the indoor photos, but it does have image stabilization.

But "only" 3 megapixels, so you're going to have to be careful if you
want prints from it.


pete
--
"Send lawyers, guns and money...."

By the way the FZ-4 and FZ-5 look good but they're no where to be
found. Do you know how much they cost or any places that carry them?

Only just recently announced. Not sure of the street dates but you won't
find one yet.

Tony

I think 3M pixels is fine. I doubt many people ever print anything
larger than 8"x10". I certainly wont given the price of ink and special
paper. I find that most people don't have a clue about pixel sizes,
aspect ratios, etc. Some people cant understand why a 640x480 picture
printed as a 4"x6" picture from Walmart looks grainy/blocky or why a
camera with the factory 16M card can only hold a few pictures at the
largest size & quality. I feel they only reason you need over 3M is if
you want to do some major cropping in an image.

Pete Fenelon wrote:
Roger wrote:
over 9 feet or so away. I think I read the Canon S1-IS is a little
weak
on the indoor photos, but it does have image stabilization.

But "only" 3 megapixels, so you're going to have to be careful if you
want prints from it.


pete
--
"Send lawyers, guns and money...."