I know that this isn't limited to a Europe Forum topic, but I need to buy a new camera and would love advice. <BR> <BR>I really enjoy taking photos on my vacations and have had trouble in the past with "instant" cameras and indoor/low lighting shots. <BR> <BR>Can more experienced persons offer comments on a fairly simple-to-use, all-purpose (non-digital) camera? Something with a decent zoom would be nice, too. <BR> <BR>Thank you!

Lisa, I'm not an expert on cameras but Consumer Reports rated the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer EX ($159.95) the highest among the point and shoot cameras. I got one a few months ago and took it on my trip to Italy. No complaints so far. It includes options for panoramic shots although you have to be careful when getting your film developed because some developers don't notice the different size. It also has a self timer and a remote although you pay a little more for the remote.

You can solve the low-lighting problem by using either 400 speed film (if you can prop the camera on something or have very steady hands) or 800 speed (even better, but I don't use it as much as I should because I hate having to switch film in and out when traveling). I haven't shopped for a point and shoot camera in quite a while, so I will leave the specific recommendations to others who have. If you decide to get a light-weight SLR (which allows you to use whatever lens you choose), then I would recommend the Canon Rebel. It isn't all that expensive and gives you more options than most point and shoot cameras. You can even use it on full automatic if you choose, as sort of a point and shoot with extras (when you want them).

Low-light interior shots can be a problem unless you use a tripod (which can be a pain to lug around and is forbidden in many historic buildings and museums in Europe). The typical flash on a camera just doesn't reach very far... it's essentially useless at distances of more than 15 feet or so. But try this: use very fast film (800 or 1000 ASA) and a rest your elbows on something solid as you take the shot, or press your hands sideways into a collumn or something similar. And don't forget to switch the camera to its "no flash" setting. The automatic exposure in the camera will set the shutter speed so low that if you were holding the camera up to your face in the usual manner, the barely perceptible shake of your hands would cause the picture to be blurred. <BR> <BR>Another strategy, though more time-consuming, is to get one of the tiny (6-inch or so) mini-tripods that sell for around $10 at any camera store. Screw it into the bottom of the camera (trust me; there'll be a scew hole) and find something solid to set it up on. Then use the timer feature found on most P&S and SLR cameras to take a no-hands shot. You can compose the shot but not be holding the camera at all when the shutter clicks. You won't need to use fast film with this technique, since there won't be any jiggling. Again, though, set the camera for no-flash.

Hi Lisa. If you want good pictures, I think your choices are two fold: (1) get a near top of the line point and shoot made by a leading company such as Nikon, Pentax, or Minolta, or (2) get a good Single Lens Reflex camera with a good zoom lens and a standard lens that opens out to 1.4 or 1.7. <BR> <BR>If you want to be able to take good photographs under a variety of lighting conditions, there is no substitute for good equipment that will adjust for fast film (ASA 400 or better). When traveling, I find that I constantly encounter extreme conditions. In the mountains, I am confronted with snow scenes that demand small lens apertures and fast shutter speeds; in cities I am often in cathedrals or other places with dim light where I cannot use a flash. (Flash is often prohibited, or the range is too great. Even the best flash units are not effective at a range of over 45 feet because light intensity decreases as a function of the square of the distance. That is one reason that I get amused at people popping little flash cameras at night football games. That little flash isn't worth a twat at 50 yards.) <BR> <BR>The cost of good photographic equipment is a factor for most of us. To get top flight equipment of any type at favorable prices, I have had good results when I bought used equipment that is nearly new or like new. B and H in New York and KEH in Atlanta are two reputable camera dealers that sell used equipment. Both have good web sites so you can read the technical specs before you buy. (My latest SLR is a Minolta I bought used from KEH. I am not sure you need a $400 Nikon however of the point and shoot type.) <BR> <BR>There are some definite advantages when using a point and shoot model. <BR>When on the go, having everything in one handy package makes a lot of sense. The price of convenience, however, is often the distortion and lack of sharpness you get in your pictures. Many of the zoom lens on cheap point and shoot models, particularly those that adjust from wide angle to telephoto, sacrifice both lens speed and sharpness. <BR> <BR>If you want good photographs under a wide variety of conditions, there is nothing like a top grade SLR with a good set of lens. The choice seems to be convenience and lousy versus cumbersome but good. <BR> <BR>The strongest feature of a good SLR is its versatlity. If the camera has a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second, or better, you can use ASA 400 film and then adjust for light conditions that vary from indoor, available light scenes to snow scenes with full, bright sunlight. (Indoors, flash is not always permitted or effective, such as inside a cathedral) <BR> <BR>This year I decided to go with my SLR, despite its drawbacks. After some disappointing results with a medium grade point and shoot, I decided that from now on, I will pay the price and carry my single lens reflex camera. It has a sharp 1.4 standard lens, an 80 - 200 mm zoom telephoto lens and a 28 mm wide angle lens. <BR> <BR>Fast film adds to the versatility. I no longer hesitate to use ASA 400 or ASA 800 film because the old problems, namely grainy enlargements, are minimized with the newer films. I am a Fuji fan myself, and find that its ASA 400 color film, both slides and prints, is ideal under most circumstances. <BR> <BR>So you pays your money and take your choice. But if you want pictures that are worth having and showing, you need good equipment. Keep looking, there is a compromise solution out there for you. <BR> <BR>If you want to discuss this further, my address above is not a phony. <BR>A friend of mine is a professional photographer and I can always bounce tough technical questions off of him.

Lisa, along with all of the very good advice that you have already received, some of which I can use, by the way, I understand your situation. <BR> <BR>On previous trips, I used either my limited Olympus 38-70 zoom automatic or lugged around the Olympus OM-B with three lenses, separate flash and gizmos. The result? The photos from the automatic were OK, but wide angle or close up shots were not possible. With the other Olympus, my lack of attention to detail and camera knowledge led me to lousy shots. What was I to do? <BR> <BR>I searched until I found the right camera. I bought a Sigma SA-7, lightweight (less than one pound) and compact with many easy-to-use automatic features, with a Sigma 28-200mm automatic zoom lense (one pound). I received them just two days before heading to Rome. I was worried. <BR> <BR>Well, I took 12 rolls of photos on my new camera and I must admit they came out pretty good for an amateur. I got shots of the entire coliseum, close ups of the pieta, telephoto pictures of St. Peter's from the top of Castel San Angelo, you name it. One camera, one lense, built-in flash and easy to handle. My pictures are better, camera easy-to-use and versatile and less to lug around. Maybe that could work for you? <BR> <BR>If interested, you can see this particular camera on the Sigma website. I ordered it by mail for about $400.00 total. Good luck.

Lisa,
There are a couple of old threads here somewhere on this same topic. YOu might be interested in the info you'd find there. Also I would recommend photo.net as an excellent resource for choosing a point & shoot camera.

I have an Olympus Stylus Epic as well as a couple of SLRs. THe Stylus Epic comes in 2 or 3 zoom models. I wouldn't go over 80mm for hand-held use--even with fast film and in good light you're still susceptible to camera shake, magnified by the lens length. For low light shots, I have done exactly what someone above suggested you do--turn off the flash and use a wall or rail or column for stability. If you choose a P&S, be sure to read the instrux carefully to understand how your particular camera works. I'm thinking particularly about the automatic focusing mechanism. Last spring I took some nice shots inside the Pantheon by prefocusing on part of the ceiling and leaning into a wall. I've taken shots of carved woodwork in dark churches with my old manual SLR by opening the lens up wide and leaning--same principle--the camera adjusts the shutter speed/length of exposure to compensate for the aperture and light available. In circular rooms I've even raised the camera above my head and pressed it back into the wall for stability. It's kinda fun once you get the hang of it. I have an out-of-date bias against 400 film, so usually use 100--but the new 400s are very good.

Wow! This is enough information to put me on the right path to asking the right questions about what I really need/want to pay for. I don't want to spend more than $400.00 (and I really was thinking less than $300). <BR> <BR>I'm going to keep researching and comparison shopping using all of the great advice. Bob, I may take you up on your very generous offer. <BR> <BR>Thank you to everyone for your advice! If you only knew how much I love my scrapbooks and photos, then you would know how much I appreciate the input.

This post made me think about my monopod. I usually carry this item onto the plane. It is an aluminum telescoping pole that is about 20 inches long and is difficult to pack in my suitcase I was wondering if anyone had any experience with bringing such an item on the plan now with the new security rules? I just checked and the UAL site does not mention monopods/tripods specifically. Any Help?

Lisa, I used to work as a pro photographer (but quit because living requires an income) and sympathize with your plight. I have a couple of higher-end SLRs with zooms and whatnot which I schlep around for "serious" photo missions, but, frankly, over the years I've gotten more annoyed and self-conscious about all the hardware hanging around my neck or filling day packs etc. Smaller doesn't necessarily mean inferior where cameras are concerned, although of course there will be limitations in any format - bulky and awkward (and attractive of attention) versus small and convenient but fewer bells and whistles... <BR> <BR>One thing I learned long ago, though, is that your cheapest zoom lens comes with shoe laces. Wide angle? Back up. Telephoto? Walk up. Can't get closer? Then get the best, sharpest film you can get (usually the lowest film speed but not always) and have the photo lab enlarge a part of the picture later. In most cases you won't notice the grain, and while they're at it they can correct the composition or color balance a little, too (if you're willing to pay extra.) <BR> <BR>But... high-megabit digital cameras are getting cheaper, too (at your price point you can get a number of cameras with 3+ megapixels) and you're obviously familiar enough with computers to get your pix downloaded and printed, and trust me, at 3 megapixels and a good printer you won't be able easily to tell the prints from those shot on film. In "life cycle" terms (including film cost and processing) it's probably cheaper already than film. (I can hear the anti-digital herd thudering at me across the prairie. I don't know what the fuss is with vinyl records, too, while we're at it.) <BR> <BR>The good news is that the average quality of almost all cameras and media is better now than even a few years ago, so you probably won't go terribly wrong regardless of your decision. Good luck.

Someone mentioned the Minolta Freedom Explorer. I have this camera and it is indeed a great little performer. <BR> <BR>What makes it good is that the zoom range starts at 28mm as oppossed to 35, or even 50mm on some of these cameras. The Minolta is a 28-75. <BR> <BR>Trust me, you want a wider angle lens in Europe, and really just about anywhere you travel. <BR> <BR>Learn to you the flash function: Outdoor, in full daylight, turn the flash off. Outdoors, in full daylight with people posing in the picture, set the flash to "fill-flash". Indoors use full automatic. I use mine with a tiny tripod that has flexible legs for taking shots inside dark places...with the flash off. The little tripod slips in the camera case and weiiighs nothing. <BR> <BR>Use 400 speed film all the time in these cameras. The lense are so slow that you need a fast film. <BR> <BR>I have a few photos taken with the Minolta on my site. <BR> <BR>http://www.jimtardio.com

LIsa, <BR>The Olympus Stylus Epic fixed focal length (no zoom) is about $90, if you decide a point & shoot works for you. It has a great lens, comparable to the Zeiss lens in the Yashica T4, another great p&s, but about 2x the price. Y T4 doesn't have the integral lens cover or weather-proofing of the Olympus, either. <BR> <BR>My SLRs are a Minolta Maxxum autofocus that I inherited from my dad and a Minolta X-700 that I've had for ten years (replaced a dead Yashica). A consideration when choosing an SLR/manual focus is whether you want aperture priority or shutter priority. I go with aperture priority because I like to control the depth of field and be able to do the low-light thing as described in posts above. What the "-priority" means is which you choose and which the camera will set for you, based on the other setting you chose. Aperture priority means you set the f-stop--the opening of the lens--and the camera sets the corresponding shutter speed (this is with modern thru-the-lens light metering only--"TTL"). Shutter priority means you choose the shutter speed and the camera opens up the lens as needed to expose the shot correctly, given the light level. Trouble is, if you choose even a 1- or 2-second shutter speed, the lens may still not be able to open up wide enough to let in enough light for your exposure--you'd have to guess and risk not getting the shot. With aperture priority, your risk is camera shake, not whether the exposure is correct. Let's see if I remember this right: overexposure can be remedied in the lab (by 'burning in'--selectively exposing part of the negative for longer in the printing process) but underexposure cannot--the details are not recorded on the film to pull out of the gloom. HOpe this helps.

Fell free, Lisa, to ask me. If I don;t know, I will stir Tom up. He is at times a little of a curmudgeon, but I ask him anyhow, and pester him until he answers. He is a professional who has earned a good living as a forensic photographer. He has some of the most beautiful Nikon equipment I ever saw, really high end multi thousand $$ type of gear. (I am like a salesman; I just keep bugging away.) <BR> <BR>B and H and KEH both sell new gear as well as used equipment. Over the years I have bought from them, both seem to be reputable dealers. I know the used lens and used camera I got from KEH were rated excellent plus; both looked new to me. <BR> <BR>There is an incredible number of point and shoot cameras on the market. <BR>I think both dealers have a good lineup in their on-line catalogs. <BR> <BR>Buying used lenses in excellent plus or better condition is not risky. It is very hard to wear a lens out by taking pictures with it. Age, exposure to bad conditions, accidents, and ill treatment [banging it around, dropping it, drowing it etc.] are what do lenses in. Use alone rarely causes the glass to distort. (I have some friends whose appearance might be a threat however.) <BR>

Ugh!! I typed up a long list of suggestions based on my recent Europe trip a couple of hours ago, and they didn't post. I will just mention a few things, some of which have been touched on since I tried that post. Bob makes a good point about the used lenses. I have bought two that way and love them. For your price, however, about the best you might be able to do in that department (after getting a camera) is to get a 50 mm, which can be found cheaply but can be limiting for travel photography. It is worth looking though; you never know. As Jim said, 28mm or wider is a real bonus. I just bought a 20-35mm lens before my recent trip, and it worked wonders. With a wide lens, your photos can often go from ho-hum to spectacular and different than the norm. Plus, it allows you to get a lot more in the frame without having to back up and get all those things in there that you may not want (such as crowds of tourists). I think a 28-105 or 28-135 zoom is perfectly adequate for 90-95% of travel photography, but a wider lens is useful in tight places such as the tiny streets of Venice. In summary, 28 is great, and anything below is a luxury. <BR> <BR>Jim also talked about a couple of other things I wanted to mention: fill flash and film speed. I use mostly 100 speed, except in overcast conditions or inside. However, even with an SLR, 400 might be better if you like candid people shots. You can get them with 100, but it is more hit and miss. If the subject is in the shade or moving, you may have trouble if the light isn't quite there. Candid shots are where something above 100mm really comes in handy too (I usually use a 70-210 for those, but the 28-105 is ok). In regards to fill flash, I always preach using the flash for fairly close people photos during the daytime. On my recent trip, I got a little lazy about it at times, especially when using the super-wide angle. What will happen if you don't use the fill is you might get either a dark person and decently exposed background or decently exposed person and blown out background. The lab has to make a choice which to print right. Now if you get a custom print done, they may be able to get more balance. Film just can't record all the gradations of light your eye can see. <BR> <BR>Aside from the camera issue, I noted that excessive contrast is a particular problem when shooting early or late in squares (the Colosseum too). The sun only lights one side at a time, and the contrast is too much to record properly. It is good to try to avoid too much contrast by shifting the camera angle to include mostly the darker or lighter parts of the subject. I didn't pay enough attention to this in Italy, but then again I took so many photos from so many angles that I usually got what I was after. That is the difference between photography as part of travel and photography as the reason for travel. When I do the latter, I can make sure to be at the right spot at the right time based on the lighting.

This thread is really making me laugh. Photographers and their cameras, its like potato chips, once we start, we can't stop. I really agree with the comments about point and shoot. A steady hand, good glass and good film are the main ingredients for a good picture. Cheap zooms are often not a good option. I have digital too, and it does work well in most cases, but there is something about film for that really sharp, blow up and hang on the wall photo we all are seeking. I would say get the cheapest, most convenient p/s with the best lens you can. Have fun!

Fstopper, pass the bag. Oh, and the dip too while you are at it.

I agree. SLR's for some reason lead to more lenses, more filters, more this, more that. It is indeed, as said above, like eating potato chips. And for a casual photographer, a lot of money can be tied up quickly.<BR>That is why I buy used equipment.<BR>One thing about a good camera and lens, if you take good care of it, it does not depreciate to zero value!!<BR><BR>Just for the record, a used 28 - 80 mm zoom lens, auto focus, for a Canon automatic camera runs under $100 in "like new minus" or "excellent plus condition." A canon EOS 650, which is a mid range as SLRs go, runs under <BR>$170 in "excellent plus" condition.<BR>A new Shure Shot Classic, 38 mm - 80 mm(slight wide angle to short telephoto)<BR>runs around $180. It is a fairly decent point and shoot, but 80 mm is a little short for a telephoto. A 135 is a little better, and a 200 mm is better still. For African lion safari shots, I think you need a 300 mm (at least), but at that size, the weight can cause wiggle if you don't have a steady hand.<BR>(I like my chips with a low fat dip.)<BR>

OK you SLR shutter bugging afficianados, the lady said easy to use. I haven't seen the SLR yet that I thought was easy to use, even if it will focus automatically and adjust for the light and everything.<BR>"Even the human eye focuses faster than Minolta." Perhaps, but who turns the knobs??<BR>I think you guys are getting off on a tangent.

Adding fuel to the fire . . . Bob, most P&S have way too slow a lens at 135-200mm to be useful except in bright sunlight and with 800 film. Consider this: a handy photo tip is never to take a shot at a speed less than 1 over the focal distance for 4 x 6 prints (otherwise shake will be too great). If you are shooting at 170mm, you need the camera to take the photo in 1/170 of a second or faster. Remember, on a P&S you have a generally slow lens--probably will be shooting at f 13 at that length.

Lisa, I suggest going to a camera store and comparing. I am not exactly sure whether you want an SLR or a point and shoot camera. Take a look at the Canon Rebel SLR and point and shoot models. Even WalMart sells Rebels. I haven't personally used a Rebel, but I have heard some photogs say they carry them as a sophisticated point and shoot when they want something lighter in weight. They don't normally come with the best zoom lens Canon has to offer, but it is probably not too bad. If you want to add a great all around lens later, you can get a Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 at a decent price, especially used. B&H sells Rebels with a lens for under $400. Compare and see what type of camera appeals to you.