I have never traveled to Europe but will be in Italy for a week in the fall. I'm hoping not to have to buy a camera since I have been perfectly happy with one-time use cameras for my occasional needs and exceptionally pleased with the throwaways that make 10 in. wide prints. Of course, a lot of this has been trips to Santa Fe which ALWAYS looks perfect!<BR>I will buy a lot of postcards and am wondering if I will be happy supplementing those with prints from the disposable or.....<BR>what inexpensive all-purpose, lightweight camera have you used and would recommend??<BR>I'm sure that I have a drawer full of cameras from the past years, however, I am not thrilled with fumbling with a camera and carrying it around (in addition to the now requisite water bottle).<BR><BR>Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated since "I wish I had".......isn't repairable at a later date.

I certainly wouldn't rely on disposables since basically every roll of film takes up the space of a small camera. Not very efficient packing. <BR><BR>But if you are not comfortable with photography gear just buy an inexpensive point and shoot 35 mm camera. Every camera maker has several models. You can get a decent one for around $50. A little ore if you want zoom. A zoom lens is an advantage - but if that will intimidate you don't worry about it. Just a basic auto focus camera will serve your needs MUCH better than throw aways.

YES. I often bring along a disposable camera to alternate with my regular camera. I'll take one panoramic disposable & a couple regular disposables. I get my best pics by understanding the shortcomings of these cameras --- ideal is to frame shots with subject matter 5 to 12 feet away. Even if it means not getting "everything" in your field of vision, it will be a better pic if you get closer. For example, you may want to get ALL of the Trevi Fountain in your picture, but that's what postcards are for (unless you're one of those bringing the serious equipment/lenses, etc). Better to get as close to edge (don't fall in the water!) and focus on the central sculpture.<BR><BR>One of my favorite pics taken in Europe is of Stonehenge. Used the pano; again even with panoramic, it's still better to get closer to subject. At Stonehenge, there is restrictions of the pathway and so you can only get about 8 feet to closest stone. I didn't get the entire cluster in my frame; yet it's pretty darn good for a throwaway camera photo.<BR>

We've lugged our camera around Europe and have been rewarded with beautiful pictures. Our camera is a 35mm, not all that fancy, but certainly not light. Not wanting to be concerned with watching a camera, we took disposables on a recent trip to the Caribbean. Big mistake. Average pictures that did not do justice to the surroundings regardless of the time of day, amount of light, etc. Pictures from our trips are very important to us and we were very disappointed.

Roco,<BR>My husband originally wanted to use only disposable cameras, including the panoramic type, for our trip through six countries. I persuaded him to bring our nice Kodak digital camera as well. We are SO glad. <BR><BR> The photos from the disposable are disappointing, grainy and muddy looking, compared to the digitals, which are sharp and vivid (not to mention they're easy to manipulate and edit.) The digital also worked well in museums, where flash isn't allowed, and other lower light situations.<BR><BR>But I'm an artist, so I'm pretty picky about good quality images. Not everyone would be. I'm NOT a photographer, so I can't help you choose the best type of all-purpose camera, sorry!

Roco - A digital camera is fine - but probably not the best choice for you. They are easy to use but for someone who really isn't that comfortable with photography in the first place, they invlove learning about loading, printing etc.<BR><BR>And most simple point and shoots now also offer panoramic modes so that helps compensate for not having a wide angle zoom lens.<BR><BR>I personally carry a digital and and high end 35 mm -- But from what you say I think you would be most happy with a simple 35mm camera. Nothing to set or worry about and you will get very good photos.

First, I don't see how carrying about multiple disposables keeps you from "having to carry around a camera." But then I am an artist and a photographer so I take rolls per day. I would recommend you get an APS format camera (the canister film takes the panoramic shots and also regular size). I bought a Fuji years ago for under $100,and I have never been disapointed in it. You can probably do better pricewise if you buy from the internet. I saved over $100 on my digital. I would not recommend a digital for someone who doesn't want to download them afterwards, play with them, and have to print them. The new cameras are so easy to work, you will have a hard time taking bad photos! And, I agree Sante Fe and New Mexico in general is hard to make look bad....

Roco,<BR>Presuming you are from the US and your trips to Santa Fe is on the car, here are the differences.<BR><BR>First, the bulk. You will have to carry cameras in carry on unless you are willing to have your pictures zapped by luggage inspection. Suppose you take 200 pictures (very very conservative), then with 35mm with 36 exp rolls, you only have to carry one roll in the camera and 5 rolls outside. If you were to do this using disposal, you are talking about 8 disposal cameras at 27exp each!<BR><BR>Then the quality of picture. You have spent so much money, setting aside time to get there. The dispo camera's do well sunny outside, but terrible inside even with one with flash. In Europe, lots of pictures are taken indoors. So why wouldn't want anything but decent pictures from these valuable opportunities?<BR><BR>Disposable fumble vs point and shoot fumble. As I said you have to take lots of indoor pictures alot. With dispo camera, you have to REMEMBER to precharge the flash before taking the picture. The point and shoot in automode usually automatically charge up the flash for you and prevents you from taking the picture until it is ready. I think a 35mm point and shoot cameras are easier to use in this sense. If loading the roll is what concerns you, the point and shoot cameras now pretty much take care of that.<BR>

With all due respect the APS cameras give the worst quality pictures for the most cost in processing that has ever been perpetrated on the camera lugging public. If you must have a panoramic shot take 1 disposable panoramic camera. Then get an inexpensive P&S and just make sure you get the film threaded properly. There is such a "sameness" to panoramic pictures. Not all scenes should be.

I think a thirty-five mm camera is best for you. APS are small and good quality, but the film is harder to find and much more expensive in Europe than 35mm. If you take all your film with you APS is OK but 35mm negatives are larger and generally better quality.

I am not a camera nut but I did forget my "good" camera on a recent trip to Ireland and had to rely on disposables. **Big mistake**. Those cameras just cannot capture the scenery and do it justice. Take along a good automatic camera and you won't be sorry.

Be sure to take some black and white film. Black and white pictures are great - they never look "dated" and sometimes you see beautiful features in pictures that you wouldn't normally notice because the color takes precedence. Some of our best pictures of the Florence Duomo are in black and white.

Let's take a look at what you get.<BR><BR>The difference from camera to camera isn't just convenience and cost. There are differences.<BR><BR>The most noticable on smaller (4 x 6) photographs is how clear they are. <BR><BR>Very cheap cameras have a very small and cheap (plastic) lense. This isn't just poor quality but let's very little light into the camera.<BR><BR>To help get properly exposed photos the only other variable must be adjusted. That means the shutter speed is reduced or slowed. This allows more light in.<BR><BR>A slow shutter speed makes it almost impossible to get a clear photo. The camera must be held absolutely steady and the subject cannot move (good luck!!).<BR><BR>Most people who use very very cheap cameras don't know enough about how to keep it very steady.<BR><BR>A shutter speed of 1/125th of a second or shorter is required except for effect or evening shots shots. You can't do that with even point and shoot cameras.<BR><BR>And we haven't even consider wide angle or telephoto lenses. <BR><BR>Once the photo is clear and properly exposed probably the greatest disapointment with travel photos is the fact that our eye sees quite a wide angle but most cameras (lenses) are not as wide.<BR><BR>I have a moderate wide angle/zoom (28-105mm). Quite interestingly, I find that most of my travel photos are taken at the wider end rather than the telephoto end (with 50mm being about the middle). Enough said.<BR>

Thanks to all of you helpful, knowledgeable Fodorites -- I have officially nixed the disposable camera idea but will probably throw in a panoramic disposable.<BR><BR>NOW HELP IS NEEDED to find me the easiest to use, most practical and probably the least expensive (since I will NOT be in Europe again) POINT and SHOOT. I would like BRAND NAMES and Model numbers of anything that you might have used that has surprised you with good results and any suggestions that would help. At one time on this site, someone suggested an "Elph", one loaded with 100 ASI and one loaded with 200 ASI---that sounds like an expensive proposition. What is the best all around film to do both inside and outside pictures in a point and shoot???<BR><BR>Thanks.

Roco<BR>I have had an Olympus for several years now. Don't have model number at the moment. Paid at the time around $200 or less. I am clearly not a photography or camera expert, but my trip photos are VERY important to me. Here are my very amateur comments on simple-minded camera features that are important to me<BR>(photog experts will no doubt groan):<BR><BR>red-eye compensation for indoor shots (sometimes effective, sometimes not so much)<BR><BR>"fill in"--an excellent feature.<BR>When you take a picture of a person or item that is in shade, or in front of something else like a sculpture or person standing in front of a window, or if the subject has the sun behind it, this feature adds a little flash to make the subject not come out black or very dark in the picture. Also called back-lighting compensation.<BR><BR>"Flash can be turned off" feature:<BR>We camera novices have to remember that flashes are only effective for lighting a subject no more than about 15 feet away, less for some cameras. I always smile to myself when I see anxious picture-takers using flashes for some object that is 30 feet or more away. Useless I'm afraid.<BR>You want to be able to turn the flash off if there is a chance of glare or reflection (such as shooting an artwork that is behind glass)<BR><BR>Finally, my little Olympus has a zoom feature, 30-70 I think. Helps bring some near subjects closer into the picture,good for portrait or flower close-ups for example, is of no help at all for objects that are really off in the distance. For that you need a true zoom lens.<BR>On my camera, all of the above features can be used or turned off by simple touch of a button, with little picture<BR>icons to remind me which is which.

Apparently I'm in a tiny, tiny minority, but I'll throw in my two cents worth just to stir up the pot. On my last three annual trips to Italy, I have used only Fuji Quick-Snap disposable cameras. I'm just going to tell you what happened and then I won't answer again, so don't anyone bother to try to argue with me. I get many, many compliments on my pictures. Everyone who sees them asks "What kind of camera did you use?", and they are always shocked when I tell them I used those little disposable cameras. Don't bother to suggest that these people are just being polite. I think they are sincere because I think my pictures are beautiful. That's all. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'm going again four weeks from yesterday and I'm taking disposable cameras.

I posted a couple of posts back on the value of a good camera.<BR><BR>Now the compromise.<BR><BR>The point and shoot.<BR><BR>The more expensive (see Elaine's Olympus) that she estimated at about $200. That not only has a zoom, but most likely has several (at least a few) focusing zones.<BR>What that means is that it will recognize the approximate distance of the subject and focus to that distance zone. The $50. point and shoot probably does not have a zoom and has only 1 focusing zone.<BR><BR>More expensive cameras focus exactly on the subject and do not have focusing zones. They also compensate for different lighting conditions by adjusting the lense opening and/or (depending upon the camera and preference settings) the shutter speed.<BR><BR>To summarize. Disposable, simple point and shoot, point and shoot with at least a few focusing zones and full featured camera.<BR><BR>Elaine also covered some of the more advanced considerations such as red-eye reduction, fill-in flash and back lighting. In effect these are problems that you try to adjust for (when you recognize them) as they fool the camera's automatic operation.<BR><BR>Hope some of this helps.<BR><BR>

Just returned from Italy.Sorry that we took disposable cam photos as they're not sharp and we're having difficulty placing them in a regular photo album.

I highly recommend an Olympus Stylus Epic. You can go online to www.bhphoto.com and mail order one for $89.00.<BR><BR>This camera has a fast 35/2.8 lens, flash, a few other features..and can fit in your shirt pocket. The lens is sharp as can be. I normally carry one, in addition to all my other gear, loaded with black & white film. <BR><BR>I'm constanly amazed at the quality this camera delivers. Go here to a shot I took in Paris:<BR><BR>http://www.jimtardio.com/paris-bw-old-man-big.html

Jim's $90. Olympus probably has several focusing zones but no zoom. 35mm f/2.8 lense.<BR><BR>Add that between simple point-and-shoot and point-and-shoot with focusing zones and zoom lense.<BR>