[+Rep] HD Camera

[Turbocom]

Hey Guys,

So I've been taking a few pictures with my current camera, and now the results are very poor. I'd like to take high resolution photos and my camera is not capable of doing that.

Can anyone suggest a camera to me that is



Good
Easy to use
and cheap

I'd really appreciate it, + Rep to everyone who makes a helpful comment!

I've been looking at this:

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4777600&CatId=3625

[Recursion]

EDIT: sorry, didn't see you wanted stills XD

[mb-group.net]

Take a look at the Panasonic Lumix range. They are very nice cameras.

[Angel-Charlene]

A good camera is to do with optical zoom and not mega pixels, don't let the mega pixels make you think that the camera is good. 3 optical zoom is like any most digital cameras x

[Turbocom]

A good camera is to do with optical zoom and not mega pixels, don't let the mega pixels make you think that the camera is good. 3 optical zoom is like any most digital cameras x
I don't really care about "zoom" I just want an HD Camera :P + Rep

[Stephen!]

Most cameras are HD. High Definition is the term given to anything which is 1280 x 720 resolution or above... I think you're just looking for a camera with great picture quality and colour.

[Tomm]

You need to be very careful about using terms like HD since, as posted above, HD can mean a very low (In terms of photography) resolution that may even be worse than your current camera.

Although, don't be fooled by megapixels - they don't ensure you'll get a better picture.

Quick example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000P4SYVI/300003324-21/?m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

Costs £2939 (not even including a lens) and has 10.1 MP

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4777600&CatId=3625

Costs $280 and has 12MP

I'd be very confident in saying that with even a crap lens on that 1D you'd get a much better photograph that with that second camera even if you left both camera on full auto.

If you give us a price range then we may be able to help you out a little bit more.

[Turbocom]

You need to be very careful about using terms like HD since, as posted above, HD can mean a very low (In terms of photography) resolution that may even be worse than your current camera.

Although, don't be fooled by megapixels - they don't ensure you'll get a better picture.

Quick example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000P4SYVI/300003324-21/?m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

Costs £2939 (not even including a lens) and has 10.1 MP

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4777600&CatId=3625

Costs $280 and has 12MP

I'd be very confident in saying that with even a crap lens on that 1D you'd get a much better photograph that with that second camera even if you left both camera on full auto.

If you give us a price range then we may be able to help you out a little bit more.
about $100-$250 CAD.

[Angel-Charlene]

I don't really care about "zoom" I just want an HD Camera :P + Rep

I know I know, but it gives you a better picture overall, with or without you zooming in. Optical zoom gives you a better picture overall.

[-TGIFriday]

Well, my camera is very good - it cost around £120 - you could probably get a better deal than that. Its 10.2 megapixel -Samsung L201 - 3x Optical Zoom lens - Digital Image Stabilization (DIS) - Face Detection - Self Portrait Mode - Multi Charging System - Motion Timer - Auto Contrast Balance (ACB) - 2.7" Intelligent LCD.

Now I read that off the box, but I know it's an extremely good camera! Comes in Pink, Silver, Blue, Green & Black :P
Mines Pink :eusa_danc

[paul4wolves]

anything by cannon really, can't go wrong.

[GommeInc]

HD cameras don't exist... They've never existed. Cameras in themselves have always been clear and crisp, depending on size of the image and quality of focus... Heck, if we want to play the HD game, they've always existed, the first film camera EVER was HD, maybe even some of these pinhole cameras provided the exposure was correct :/

Most Nikon cameras are good, some Canons are good. D-SLR tend to be the better choice. However, I have a Sony Cyber-shot Vario-Tessar by Carl Zeiss which does good images, even though Sony are selling on the crap line of "Full HD 1080 Still Image" which is a big truck full of horse crap :P

[mb-group.net]

HD cameras don't exist... They've never existed. Cameras in themselves have always been clear and crisp, depending on size of the image and quality of focus... Heck, if we want to play the HD game, they've always existed, the first film camera EVER was HD, maybe even some of these pinhole cameras provided the exposure was correct :/

Most Nikon cameras are good, some Canons are good. D-SLR tend to be the better choice. However, I have a Sony Cyber-shot Vario-Tessar by Carl Zeiss which does good images, even though Sony are selling on the crap line of "Full HD 1080 Still Image" which is a big truck full of horse crap :P

You aren't entirely correct. HD means high definition, meaning a resolution of 1280x720 or above, most cameras have that resoution. If it has a 1280 still image, it means there are 1280 pixels vertically.

[GommeInc]

You aren't entirely correct. HD means high definition, meaning a resolution of 1280x720 or above, most cameras have that resoution. If it has a 1280 still image, it means there are 1280 pixels vertically.
How was I incorrect? Selling a camera as an HD camera is a brain-dead marketing strategy to entise potential buyers - cameras have always been HD, provided the focus is fine. Resolutions don't mean anything, film cameras don't come with resolutions :/

Unless you mean the "Full HD 1080 Still Image" - because that's not me who is incorrect, that's called Sony and any other company marketing it as HD :P Also, isn't the lowest resolution (1280xnumber) meant to be 1080 to qualify as HD? 720 isn't right, is it?