HP Cameras - Do they suck?

[uglymoney]

This is the first 'new thread' that I have started since morphing into a maggot this summer. Its probably not worthy but here goes.

I have owned a HP M407 (4.1 megapixel) for the last one year and it took some nice pics before taking a shit on me. First it developed an issue with the SD card slot. I often had to pull the card in and out to get it to read. Then I it developed a crack near the batteries that ran to the top of the camera causing the flap to come out of its hinges. I put it back, but eventually the entire camera sort of split and the only way I could keep things running was with multiple rubberbands and hand pressure.

I turned it on this weekend and the LCD is toast, the camera is done.

I drop stuff a lot, and took it skiing, abused it, etc, but still I am a little dissapointed. Cameras should be at least as tough as a cell phone or I should probably not own one.

Advice on a tougher el cheapo camera this time around or is the HP as good as the rest?

[MeatPuppet]

I like canon and sony. I have had several of both brand since digital became a usable option, and they have all been very robust. I've never been impressed with HP, either in build, image quality, or features. So in answer to your question, no, HP is not as good as the rest, not even close. In fact I would put HP at the bottom of the list along with panasonic and a few others.

I've never owned a fuji but I know a few people who have and they are as happy with their camera as I have been with sony and canon. So you might check out one of those three brands.

[wicked_sick]

HP is inferior. I worked in retail selling digital cameras and cell phones for awhile, and more HPs came back with their dissatisfied owners than any other brand. Their lens quality sucks, durability is questionable, and the electronics could be better.

What sort of money are you looking to spend? Cameras now are a lot cheaper than they were a couple years ago, and with more features and better image quality. If you're going to be outdoors a lot with your camera, look into Olympus's water resistant line. They are awesome

[CANADASTEEP]

olympus has a decent model, forget the name.
not sure if it'sthe water resistant one.

Best digital camera on the market is the Casio EX-Z750, $330 US, takes video too, and long lasting rechargeable battery

[kchri]

I have Canon and Fuji cameras and they both are durable and take very good pictures (A95, S2 IS, S602Z and E550).

Check out: [Steves Digicams Reviews]

He reviews all the cameras and makes selection easier...

[bad_roo]

Best digital camera on the market is the Casio EX-Z750, $330 US, takes video too, and long lasting rechargeable battery

The best ski available is the Head m103 and the best car is the Lotus Exige.

[uglymoney]

HP is inferior. I worked in retail selling digital cameras and cell phones for awhile, and more HPs came back with their dissatisfied owners than any other brand. Their lens quality sucks, durability is questionable, and the electronics could be better.

What sort of money are you looking to spend? Cameras now are a lot cheaper than they were a couple years ago, and with more features and better image quality. If you're going to be outdoors a lot with your camera, look into Olympus's water resistant line. They are awesome

Thanks meatpuppet/ wicked (others for camera suggestions) for the pretty straightforward confirmation regarding HP's bottomfeeding status. I suspected that was the case based on this experience.

I spent $200 on this one a year ago. I would like a camera that can take action shots in low light, but they generally seem expensive. With the HP action shots were pretty much out, it was impossible to get a waterskiing shot for instance as you could never time the pic to the turn, and if the light was low forget it.

So I dunno. Either I spend $150 for an durable el cheapo similar to the HP that can take nice stills, or I pony double that and get a cheap action capable camera. Just spent my camera money on a barryvox though, could not pass up that deal

Edit: The Olympus Stylus 600 does look like a sweet eyepiece. I wonder if it can really take decent low light action shot?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_...stylus600.html

[wicked_sick]

Check this out, uglymoney. All the info you'd ever want on the 600

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_...stylus600.html

[Spats]

If you want action shots in low light from a compact, you need a Fuji F10 or F11 (basically the same camera, F11 has some extra manual modes). It cranks up to ISO 1600 with picture quality close to a D-SLR, though it's got some funky issues of its own, and the burst mode isn't all that (though better than most). Check the reviews.

Good review sites:
www.dpreview.com (best IMO)
www.dcresource.com
www.steves-digicams.com

[ratherbskiing3]

I have used 4 different HP digi cams and have had no problems. I have the r607 now and its small and sweet. My father uses only HP's on his construction sites and has had no problems. The dust, dirt, and drops have not been an issue.
I like and suggest HPs but that just my opinion.

[CANADASTEEP]

If you are looking for good low light from a point and shoot digital camera, you are asking too much. You need a D-SLR for that.

Best point and shoot is the casio exilim EX-750, can be had for $330 US
has a rechargeable lithium Ion battery (saves $$) in the long run, VIDEO mode, mpeg-4 format, and the video isn't limited i.e. have a 2gig card? 2gigs of video!
has a good cradle to for easy upload to a CPU, buy cables to have a slideshow on a TV
Trust me, it's the best one out there.
For a good techical site is www.kenrockwell.com - Go to the site,
and use the "search kenrockwell.com" function, or do it from google.
Has a good piece of advice: get a clear plastica PDA protector for the LCD

Hope this helps

[Spats]

If you are looking for good low light from a point and shoot digital camera, you are asking too much. You need a D-SLR for that.

Best point and shoot is the casio exilim EX-750

If you don't mind your pictures looking like a slightly blurry video capture, the Casio is great. I really wanted to like it because their user interface is superior, but the pictures out of my 3MP Canon A70 look better than the Casio. Also, it's "burst" mode is 1 FPS.

Yes, the F10/F11 does have low-light performance comparable to a DSLR. Check the dcresource review for a direct side-by-side comparison. They were surprised too.

[upallnight]

I have to second the Casio recommendation. I use an Exilim Z57 as a point-and-shoot, and it offers quite a bit in a small package.

For what it's worth, I also own/have owned pro- and prosumer film and digital SLRs...but for a point-and-shoot the Casio offers a great deal of control.

To Spats point about pictures being fuzzy: In my experience, these cameras are getting so small & light that they *demand* careful technique -- way more than some of my (hefty) SLRs. When I first got the Casio, all my shots looked great on a 2.7" LCD, but they looked *horrendous* at full magnification. I since learned that I have to really brace myself before shooting, take a deep breath, then on a slow exhale snap the shot.

In other words, it's tough to get a one-handed action shot in low light that is worthy of saving.

I don't feel that's unique to the Casio: I've observed this for a variety of small Canon & Sony cameras. I feel it has more to do with the size of the device.

Sometimes the little guys are the right tool for the job, but don't ask them to do too much.

Love the white balance features/exposure comp on the Casio -- great for shots with snow in them.

Good luck,
-e