Camera for my parents

[justinas_ragelis]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>Im new here, I have no experience in this kind of stuff so I ask you to go easy on me. I need to buy camera for my parents as a christmas present. I have no idea which one should I go for they'r all the same for me. They use it only for travelling n similar stuff. I guess everything I'd go for would be okay with them but since I'm buying a new thing I would be like to be sure its worth the money. So I might be thinking of spending about 100-150 pounds. </p>

<p>Any suggestions on what I should be looking at are very welcome.</p>

<p>Many thanks,<br>

Justin</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I don't know what this stuff costs in your area, but take a look at the Canon Elph HS and A___ IS series cameras. The A3400 IS and Elph 110 HS are both good and not very expensive.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I prefer sony point and shoots these days...look at those slightly older TX models</p>

[starvy]

<p>Get any point and shoot camera from the major manufacturers. Be sure to read online review of the camera. Depending on their age you might want to choose one that takes AA batteries?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For older folks I'd strongly recommend a compact camera that includes some form of image stabilization. Nikon calls theirs VR or vibration reduction. Others call it anti-shake, etc. </p>

<p>I'm only 55 but need it myself now to minimize problems with blur from my own shaky hands, especially indoors or dim light when not using flash.</p>

<p>Beyond that it should probably be small enough that they'll actually carry it around, but not too small to operate easily. As people age the fatty pads on fingertips decrease, making it difficult to operate buttons that younger users don't even think about. My mom can't operate most cell phones due to a combination of shaky hands and fingertips that are practically skin over bone. But she can operate her Kindle keyboard just fine, because the small buttons are well designed (other than the markings wearing off too quickly). So check the camera buttons to be sure the essential functions are easy to operate - try using your pinky fingertip, which approximates the strength and dexterity of an older user's index finger.</p>

<p>In the $200 and under range, I've seen several Sony and Olympus models that would probably do well - small, easy to operate, good results.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>I think you need to get some sense of the extent to which your parents would prefer to have a viewfinder versus using the screen on the back of the camera to compose, and also whether they would prefer something very small / pocketable or would prefer something somewhat larger / easier to hold.</p>

<p>Without knowing more, about a year ago I got a Canon SX230 HS mainly for my wife's use, and we've been quite happy with it. By your reference to pounds I assume you're in the UK, and you probably pay relatively more for cameras than I do. But I see on the Jessops website a Canon SX220 HS for GBP 150 (same as ours but without GPS, I think), and a Canon SX240 HS for GBP 169 after UKP 30 cash back. But these don't have a viewfinder. Again, maybe some idea on what you think they'd prefer?</p>

 

[geoff_portas]

<p>The Canon A1300, £75 from Jessops, has a small viewfinder, uses AA batteries and has good reports.<br /> At that price you could buy them one each!</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I also would recommend AA batteries and if they will be downloading to a computer for viewing or printing, a wireless system like bluetooth is more convenient than a wired connection or using a card reader.

[dave_redmann]

<p>The suggestions for cameras with viewfinders and cameras that use AA batteries are both ones that I've long supported. Unfortunately, very few really compact (as opposed to 'bridge') cameras have viewfinders today. Same with AA batteries. Unfortunately, with the comparative rarity of these features, you have to give up other things you might really want to get them. What I'd really like is an updated version of our Canon PowerShot A570 IS: traditional PASM modes (as well as scene modes etc.), image stabilization, viewfinder (small but better than the screen for some purposes), uses AA batteries, fits in my pocket, captures raw files with CHDK hack, and was fairly cheap ($150 or $200 in 2007). Take the same basic camera, replace the 7 MP CCD with a same-size modern CMOS sensor of 8 to 10 MP, provide for HD video capture (it has 640x480 at 30p; the successor A590 IS went down to 20p), and make the LCD a little bigger. But such a thing does not appear to exist, at least among recent models.</p>

 

[justinas_ragelis]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies. So to narrow my choices even more, definetly no viewfinder (I need the screen). And why do u recommend AA batteries? I actually hate these things and find rechargable battery much easier to use. What about sony carl zeiss products?</p>

<p>We currently had similar to this one panasonic lumix http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Panasonic_Lumix_img_0752.jpg I was unhappy with it the quality of pictures was total crap.</p>

<p> </p>

[justinas_ragelis]

<p>Im now looking at maybe fujifilm fine pix s4400 and canon ixus 230 hs, what about this HS feature does it work well?</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>As for AA's: you can buy them any time, any place, and thereby get the camera working again quickly and easily. The rechargeable battery packs require a power source, an appropriate charger, and time. Also, many of the current camera battery packs don't last too long, especially compared to lithium AA's.</p>

<p>As for the Canon Ixus 230 HS, I was surprised to see that it is <em><strong>not</strong></em> the same as my PowerShot SX230 HS, and instead it is the camera sold in the U.S. as the Elph 310 HS. That is probably a nice camera. I'm not familiar with the Fuji.</p>