Digital Camera Funtime

Just get a higher model sony compact point and shoot. Nikon and Canon are good, but they are only better at their DSLRs. A DSC-W5 or W7 is cheap, pretty small, well built, and has enough manual controls so its sort of better than lame ultra compacts.

If not that, then i'd say get something like a Panasonic DMC-FX9. Small and good quality. Get one of those.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

http://www.kenrockwell.com/casio/exz750.htm

Going to sage this completely. For one, you'd be better off getting the Sony DSC-W5 since its probably cheaper. 5MP instead of 7, but unless you are going to be printing large sized images, then the 7 is a waste of money. Casio uses Sony digital censors anyway, so theres no quality difference.

Also Ken Rockwell is sooo lame. He reviews products he hasn't used. Use any other online camera review site but that please ;_;

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Ken Rockwell is pretty funny and knows what he is talking about. Anyway, I actually bothered to read the entire review, and I'm stunned and the sheer amount of features that camera has. It can do things even $10,000 digital view cameras can't do. There is a lot more to a digital camera than its megapixel rating. Features, ease of use, and other capabilties matter just as much, even more. Also, keep in mind that the differences in megapixels between cameras is very small. The difference between 5 and 7 or even 5 and 10 is miniscule at best.

No but really, he reviews products he doesn't use. There are plent of better review sites then ken rockwell. This isn't my personal opionion, he's not much liked at most camera forums :\/

Also, i know MP aren't whats important, hence reccommending the dscw5 over the casio. Anyway, the uses he listed don't require a lot of features, but what does this Casio have that "$10,000" dollar ones do not?

And i don't get the comparison with your friend. Is he the worst photographer on earth? The kit lens alone should provide better pictures on the D-70 then than a years old Olympus. Olympus is a good choice, but theres no reason to get a camera from 2002. An Olympus C-500 is awesome, but probably uneccesary for the thread maker

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Startup time for dslrs is like 0.15 seconds

"Contrary to popular belief, the lens has little to do with the performance of a digital camera."

This is why i hate ken rockwell.

"I'm a photographer, not a camera reviewer."

Off his own site. The problem with using him is that he'll review what he likes and talk about how it works for him. He isn't a camera reviewer as he isn't comparing the product to everything else available, just to what he uses.

ANYWAY I'm just saying i think there are cheaper and more suitable options for what Kostaki wanted to use his camera for. I don't think saving hundreds of white balance options is what he wants.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well even with a personal bias, i don't care about him reviewing cameras, its just that he reviews products he hasn't used, so he's still a jerk

I was speaking idiomatically.