Help buying a compact digital camera.

[SweetErika]

A correction: My daughter's current camera is a 2.0 MP SONY "Cybershot."

It is the roughly the same dimensions as the CANON A570 -- eg it's 4cm thick and roughly 9cm x 6cm. My daughter says she carries it in the front pocket of her jeans "all the time."

Our Kodak is a little bigger than that, and we carried it in our front jean, pant or jacket pockets the entire summer (we were in and out of produce cold rooms) with no problems. It doesn't fit comfortably in my jeans because they're snugger, but it's great in my khakis and Hubby has no problem carrying it in the front pocket of his jeans.

You have a good point about them being to small to hold comfortably at some point. I don't have very long fingers and even the larger Kodak is nearly as small as I'm comfortable with. We always use the wrist strap to in case we lose our grip, and it's saved the camera from being dropped on many occasions. When I'm paying attention to getting a good pic, rather than what's in my hands, it becomes a lot easier to lose my grip than one might think.

 

[Ezzy]

I got myself a Nikon L5 for Xmas, as they have good reputation, and they are actually more advanced, yet with cooler features than some of the more modern Nikons.

It was almost as if they reached too far and overloaded t with more features than they meant to, but the winner for me was the price at $140 or around 78 pounds at the time.

The camera's they have produces since in the L series have had fewer features or less memory or a lower Optical and digital zoom.

 

[Weird Harold]

We always use the wrist strap to in case we lose our grip, and it's saved the camera from being dropped on many occasions. When I'm paying attention to getting a good pic, rather than what's in my hands, it becomes a lot easier to lose my grip than one might think.

My problem isn't dropping them, it's taking far too many pictures of my fingers and not enough pictures of what I thought I had the camera pointed at.

 

[naxalite0906]

Ok.. First of all, let me thank everyone for their input to this thread... After much looking and deciding etc... I have got it down to two options....
I used CNET (thanks erika ) to help me decide, as well as looking at a few other review sites too, and overall these seem to be the best reviewed ones based on price etc. I have not decided yet, but I am throwing it out there, but it does seem CNET prefers the sony one to the canon one.
The sony one is http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_Cyber_shot_DSC_W80_silver/4505-6501_7-32329619.html?tag=txt

The canon one is http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_PowerShot_A570_IS/4505-6501_7-32314644.html?tag=txt

I guess right now each has their own plus points. The canon one has the viewfinder, slightly better optical zoom, the battery option. The sony one is smaller, more options/features and seems to be preferred by CNET over the canon one. The sony is slightly more expensive, but I feel myself pulled towards that one. However, if anyone has anything else to say about them then I will be glad to listen.. even if it is saying "dont buy either!" lol..

 

[SweetErika]

The Sony looks good at first glance. The Canon looks good with inspection.

Did you see CNET's USER reviews of the Sony? It has a 6.7 average, with users giving it a 3/10 and 5/10. CNET's editors gave them both a 7.6.

In contrast, Canon's User reviews are very good, both on CNET and Amazon. Plus, it's got price, the battery thing (remember, the sony batteries are expensive also), viewfinder (trust me, you want to have the option, even if you use the LCD mostly) and better zoom, like you said. AND it has internal stabilization, which is such a nice feature. CNET also said it's buttons are easy to use, which is more important than you might think. You'll want to be able to use the features quickly so you can get the best photos when you're on a trip. You're getting more for a lower price with the Canon, period.

That's my argument.

 

[Weird Harold]

I guess right now each has their own plus points. The canon one has the viewfinder, slightly better optical zoom, the battery option. The sony one is smaller, more options/features and seems to be preferred by CNET over the canon one.

The viewfinder, replaceable battteries and higher optical zoom would be the deciding factors for me -- especially for a "traveling camera"

The Two MAJOR strikes against the SONY for me:

1: It does NOT use SD/SDHC memory cards which means you'll pay more for the SONY "duo" cards -- IF you can find them.

2: It requires a battery charger/external power source. Lose/damage the charger and you're out of the photography business for a while. Forget to charge the camera overnight, you're likewise out of business until you can charge it (four to eight hours.)

One point about "more features/options" -- how often are you going to use those features and options?

If there is a feature or option that you know you'll need and use frequently that might be a reason to buy a more expensive camera, but 99% of the features and options listed for the SONY are things that I would never use (except for the "red-eye reduction" feature in flash mode, because it is the default setting -- it is annoying as hell, but it does reduce red-eye and you get pictures of a lot of odd expressions, too)

Features that you don't (won't) use should be a null factor in deciding on a camera when there are other features that will be used (or missed) to base a decision on.

Between those two cameras, the CANON wins hands down for me.

 

[naxalite0906]

Ok.. I feel stupid and naive now... I guess its no contest really.. lol..

Thanks guys

I guess I looked at the sony and saw they had put that in their "top cameras" listings too, which made me think about it more. It would be nice to have certain features on the camera just so I could experiment and learn more about photography, but the canon looks to have more than enough anyway.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ok.. I feel stupid and naive now... I guess its no contest really.. lol..

Thanks guys

I guess I looked at the sony and saw they had put that in their "top cameras" listings too, which made me think about it more. It would be nice to have certain features on the camera just so I could experiment and learn more about photography, but the canon looks to have more than enough anyway.

Actually, once I had time to examine the links you provided in detail, there aren't that many more features on the SONY -- they really are "comparable" cameras -- and I had to keep checking the header to see which camera I was looking at.

 

[kindashy]

I have an older Sony digital camera. I will not buy another Sony digital camera.

I can sorta see how people would give it an average rating. I do not think my SONY camera is bad, but neither do I think it is very good.

 

[CTYankee]

I photograph for a living, and I have more cameras in the house than most people have underwear. LOTS more. I've also done time in the photo retail business recently.

Very few cameras available new today are UNABLE to read/comprehend large memory cards. This is certainly an issue that should concern you before running out and buying a 2GB card for a three year-old camera, however. But it's less of a concern for someone buying new.

I travel a lot, and I'm not so afraid of cameras with proprietary Lithium-Ion batteries. Many such cameras can take 300-1000 shots on a single battery charge. Virtually no AA-powered cameras can do anywhere near that (whether alkaline or NiMH rechargeable). It's no big deal to carry a spare Lithium-Ion battery for your camera. And if you're on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to a remote area, a spare charger isn't unwise.

I prefer out-of-camera battery chargers (where the camera itself isn't part of the charging system). That way, you can be charging Battery A while continuing to use the camera with Battery B. I also rely heavily on the ability to charge camera batteries from 12V DC, as from my car or motorcycle.

Any camera store, and even places like Wal-Mart, can copy your photos from a memory card to a CD or DVD for you. It's wise to carry enough memory cards for all the photos you plan to take on a trip. It's also wise to spread your memory card capacity across several separate cards (e.g., four 1GB cards instead of a single 4GB card), for redundancy and safety in the event of a card failure. (If a card starts acting flaky, immediately stop using it and take it to a data-recovery professional. Anything you do to it will decrease the cances of successful data recovery.) The point of this discussion is to respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed above that you should "only buy a camera that uses SD cards, since they're the most readily available". I'm a big fan of xD cards, since they're smaller and they consume less battery power (meaning more pics per battery charge). Get all the cards you think you'll need before the trip; dump data to CD/DVD as needed along the way; you'll likely not need to by additional memory cards at a souvenir shop.

Almost anyone you ask for a recommendation will suggest the camera that THEY themselves bought. I conclude that this is because of familiarity (can't recommend what you don't know), and because it reinforces their own past buying decision.

Me? I'm all about image quality when it comes to pocket cameras. Give me a really good lens, and enough pixels to make a decent print up to 8x10, and I'm happy. (If I want more than that, I have cameras costing THOUSANDS, but that's not at issue here.)

My pet peeve when it comes to "snapshots" (we're not talking fine art photography here) is the all-too-common situation where the foreground subject is lit by the on-camera flash and is OVEREXPOSED, while the background it PITCH BLACK and detail-less. If you shoot lots of flash-lit pics (friends in clubs, family at a wedding reception, etc.) you've probably seen what I mean.

FujiFilm makes a remarkable and under-appreciated line of small pocket-sized point & shoot cameras. Most have an above-average "high-sensitivity" mode, which is excellent for shooting in low available-light environments *without* a flash (e.g., museums & weddings where flash is prohibited, etc.). More important, however, is that when the flash *is* used, they "balance" the flash with the available light in an exceptionally pleasing and natural-looking way. Backgrounds have detail, so you can see the CONTEXT in which you photographed your friends. And foreground subjects aren't blown-out, pasty, detail-less white. I'm speaking of the discontinued (but still available) F20, F30, F31fd, or the current model F50fd. All of these range from 6 to 12 megapixels, and cost <= $US 225.

Hope that helps.

 

[naxalite0906]

FujiFilm makes a remarkable and under-appreciated line of small pocket-sized point & shoot cameras. Most have an above-average "high-sensitivity" mode, which is excellent for shooting in low available-light environments *without* a flash (e.g., museums & weddings where flash is prohibited, etc.). More important, however, is that when the flash *is* used, they "balance" the flash with the available light in an exceptionally pleasing and natural-looking way. Backgrounds have detail, so you can see the CONTEXT in which you photographed your friends. And foreground subjects aren't blown-out, pasty, detail-less white. I'm speaking of the discontinued (but still available) F20, F30, F31fd, or the current model F50fd. All of these range from 6 to 12 megapixels, and cost <= $US 225.

Hope that helps.

Thank you very much CTYankee. I really do appreciate the detailed input. I did look at fuji's too, but the reviews on various site's didnt seem as good as the ones for the canon I was looking at. I can't quite afford the F50fd, but I can get the F40fd within my price range. Would you definitely reccommend that too?

 

[CTYankee]

Thank you very much CTYankee. I really do appreciate the detailed input. I did look at fuji's too, but the reviews on various site's didnt seem as good as the ones for the canon I was looking at. I can't quite afford the F50fd, but I can get the F40fd within my price range. Would you definitely reccommend that too?

I believe that the FujiFilm F-series is under-appreciated and underrated. In a retail setting, however, I would shoot identical flash shots -- usually of the customer himself, right there in the store -- with an F20 and *any* other camera of the customer's choosing (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.), and simply ask them to choose.

"Which result do you prefer?"

EVERY time the more pleasing background level caused the customer to choose the FujiFilm. They may have ultimately bought something else for another reason (e.g., more zoom, water resistance, etc.), but they universally agreed that the FujiFilm's images were more pleasing and more natural-looking when using flash.

I can't speak with first-hand experience about the F40fd, but it looks very much as though the performance would be comparable to the F20 which I carried around all last summer for grab shots.

Both have a maximum sensitivity of ISO 2000; the F20 (available for $89 on Amazon) is 6mp, the F40fd is 8mp.

Other F40fd advantages:

"fd" = "Face Detection", where the focus point is automagically set on the auto-detected faces in the scene.

Dual Card Slots - supports BOTH the energy-saving xD cards AND the widely-available SD cards.

The F50fd (which I now own) is 12 megapixels and goes to ISO 6400, albeit at a reduced 3mp resolution. ISO 3200 at 6 megapixels, and ISO 2000 at 12 megapixels. HAS the face-detection, but lacks the dual card slots.

At less than half the price, I think the F20 remains the best value if you can find one. The F30 went to ISO 3200, but is even harder to find these days, being also discontinued.

If the F40fd is within your budget, I think you'd be pleased with it.

 

[Weird Harold]

I travel a lot, and I'm not so afraid of cameras with proprietary Lithium-Ion batteries. Many such cameras can take 300-1000 shots on a single battery charge. Virtually no AA-powered cameras can do anywhere near that (whether alkaline or NiMH rechargeable). It's no big deal to carry a spare Lithium-Ion battery for your camera. And if you're on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to a remote area, a spare charger isn't unwise.

Good point about battery life. My camera uses three AAA batteries and the battery life is only an hour or two. Still, without bending the budget for a spare battery and battery charger, common non-rechargeable replaceable batteries are the safer option for a non-professional on a limited budget -- different priorities for different needs.

I prefer out-of-camera battery chargers (where the camera itself isn't part of the charging system). That way, you can be charging Battery A while continuing to use the camera with Battery B. I also rely heavily on the ability to charge camera batteries from 12V DC, as from my car or motorcycle.

More good points to consider for rechargeable cameras and/or rechargeable batteries for cameras that use common replaceable batteries.

Any camera store, and even places like Wal-Mart, can copy your photos from a memory card to a CD or DVD for you.

Walgreens and most of the other big chain pharmacies also have print/save to DVD capability, but the local Walgreen's digital photo kiosk only had a single (SD) card slot the last time I looked.


The recommendation to choose a camera that uses SD/SDHC memory carsds is more than just the avaialbility at souvenier stands, though. It's al kinds of compatibility issues like the Walgreen's DIY digital photo kiosk. For example, My daughter's new CANON all-in-one printer had a "photo card" slot that directly reads and prints from SD cards. I don't believe it will accept xD cards. My daughter also routine collects any pictures I take at a party or an outing by dropping the SD card from my camera into her PDA and copying the ones she wants; couldn't do that with xD cards because her PDA won't accept them.

There's just simply more compatibility with SD Cards than the other memory formats as well as wider availability.

xD cards are generally far superior but I think it's a bit like the Beta vs VHS war o fthe 80's and SD is winning through the support infrastructure despite the power and size limitations.

It's wise to carry enough memory cards for all the photos you plan to take on a trip. It's also wise to spread your memory card capacity across several separate cards (e.g., four 1GB cards instead of a single 4GB card), for redundancy and safety in the event of a card failure. ... Get all the cards you think you'll need before the trip; dump data to CD/DVD as needed along the way; you'll likely not need to by additional memory cards at a souvenir shop.

Novices almost always underestimate how many pictures they'll take (when they don't grossly over-estimate.) That's why souvenier shops sell film and memory cards for cameras in the first place.

Traveling with a laptop and/or finding the time to (find and) detour to a camera shop or pharmacy that can download cards isn't always practical or affordable for non-professionals.

Me? I'm all about image quality when it comes to pocket cameras. Give me a really good lens, and enough pixels to make a decent print up to 8x10, and I'm happy.

I whole heartedly agree -- the optics are probably 99% of the picture quality for the cameras mentioned in this thread.

My pet peeve when it comes to "snapshots" (we're not talking fine art photography here) is the all-too-common situation where the foreground subject is lit by the on-camera flash and is OVEREXPOSED, while the background it PITCH BLACK and detail-less. If you shoot lots of flash-lit pics (friends in clubs, family at a wedding reception, etc.) you've probably seen what I mean.

Unfortunately, while all of the cameras mentioned so far have a "fill-flash" mode, it's not the default flash mode nor does it seem to be part of the auto-flash priority sequence. Whether the fill-flash mode does what it's supposed to or not is another question.

FujiFilm makes a remarkable and under-appreciated line of small pocket-sized point & shoot cameras. .... More important, however, is that when the flash *is* used, they "balance" the flash with the available light in an exceptionally pleasing and natural-looking way.

Sounds like the fill-flash mode is the default or auto-selected properly in the Fuji cameras. If there is going to be much indoor low-light photography involved, that would certainly be a "must have" feature.

 

[CTYankee]

Good points, all.

Every photo kiosk I've ever seen, however, will accept a wide variety of memory card types. That's just good business.

And on my Dell laptop, what *appears* to be a single SD-sized card slot, is actually a multi-reader capable of accepting SD, xD and Sony Memory Stick (Pro & non-Pro, plus Duo types). But it's still only a single slot -- not a separate slot for each type, as in the old days. The only card it will NOT accept is the grossly larger Compact Flash (CF) card or MicroDrive.

Regardless, the F40fd with its dual card slots would be a slick solution to any real or perceived problem, because it also supports card-to-card copying of images after they're made. A full xD card can be copied to an empty SD, for example.

Not to quibble over vocabulary, but "fill flash" is a term that I usually use when talking about taking pics in direct sunshine -- "filling in" the harsh shadow under a ball cap visor, for example, or under someone's chin. That's a time when most folks don;t even think of using flash *at all*, because there seems to be plenty of light (being mid-day sunshine & all). This is usually a reduced-power flash mode, because the objective isn't to *obliterate* the shadows -- but rather, just to make sure they contain discernable shadow details.

If a camera has a flash mode labeled "Fill Flash", it's likely this that I've described above.

The Fuji's function is similar, but subtly different. The flash power is NOT reduced. Foreground objects receive a full dose of flash exposure -- not reduced to a "detailed shadow" level. The detail in the background is due solely to the high-sensitivity capabilities (which are remarkably low noise and low grain, btw).

I sold two of these cameras to a local restauranteur for taking photos of people celebrating birthdays, anniversaries and such. He wanted -- no, he NEEDED -- discernible background detail, so that folks could see the eclectic decor & remember WHERE the photo was taken. For the partiers, the main subject was the people in the foreground. For the host, the most important part was the surroundings and the ambiance. The FujiFilm cameras were the only ones to consistently deliver BOTH.

 

[Weird Harold]

Good points, all.

Every photo kiosk I've ever seen, however, will accept a wide variety of memory card types. That's just good business.

And on my Dell laptop, what *appears* to be a single SD-sized card slot, is actually a multi-reader capable of accepting SD, xD and Sony Memory Stick (Pro & non-Pro, plus Duo types). But it's still only a single slot -- not a separate slot for each type, as in the old days. The only card it will NOT accept is the grossly larger Compact Flash (CF) card or MicroDrive.

The local walgreen's kiosk (which is the only one I've paid any reall attention to,) may have gone to a one-slot-fits-all configuration, but the slots that used to be there for xD and other types are no longer there and the slot is still labeled "SD Card." <shrugs> I know SD cards work there, but I can't say for sure that any other format does.

 

[Yang4yin]

If it's not too late...

Just to add more information and viewpoints, take a look at this:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRICE1.HTM

The link is to cameras priced at or below $150, but there are other price ranges available. You'll see links to Previews or full Reviews of the cameras, as well as a link to the Specs. There are some with Test Images, and the ones with a green "thumbs up" symbol are the reviewer's favorites.

Also, in the menu on the left, you'll find links to user forums. When I was shopping for a new camera, I found the forums as helpful as the professional reviews.

Side note: People have mentioned battery life as a consideration. I have a camera that uses 4-AAs. I use rechargeable NiMH batteries with a Powerex/MAHA MH-C204W charger. Although the battery itself has a lot to do with how long the charge lasts, this charger has a few excellent features as well. Besides a "top off" function, it will also completely drain a battery and then recharge it. For what it's worth, the charger automatically switches between US and European voltages. (Anybody in the US who wants to buy this charger and wants to know how to get a discount on it or on batteries, send me a PM.)

If you get a camera that uses AA batteries, buy at least 2300 mAh rated batteries. The higher the number, the longer it lasts per charge.

So far, I've gotten 400 pics per charge using 2300 mAh batteries... that's with a manually operated zoom lens and not leaving the power on for any length of time. At the price range you're looking, the lens will draw power from the batteries, so you probably won't get as many pics.

 

[naxalite0906]

Thanks again to everyone who has responded to me so far.... (and thanks for the PM too yan).
I have still not got a camera, but I went into town yesterday and visited some shops to try some out. I tried the canon powershot, the sony one, the fuji f50fd and the canon ixus 70. Each one was good in their own way but the weird coincidence was what the sales person said in each shop. Both were in completely different shops in different parts of town, which is why the coincidence was weird, and both made two comments that were exactly the same.
1) Neither would even think about buying a camera that uses AA batteries. They said you get far more photos per charge with the other batteries, and if you are that worried about running out, then buy a spare battery rather than re chargeables and a charger.
2) They both seemed pretty keen on the Ixus 70 and I must admit, the camera was good. But there is no real stand out from the ones I tried.

Now I am confused! lol.

 

[Yang4yin]

1) Neither would even think about buying a camera that uses AA batteries. They said you get far more photos per charge with the other batteries, and if you are that worried about running out, then buy a spare battery rather than re chargeables and a charger.

Now I am confused! lol.

Find out how much the spare battery will cost! When I was looking, the cost for a spare/replacement battery was usually around $60. Compared to a charger and NiMh AA-batteries, that seems like a lot, at least initially.

Also, if something horrendous happens and your spare doesn't work, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to get AAs in an emergency.

In the end, it's whatever YOU are comfortable with.

 

[Weird Harold]

...Each one was good in their own way but the weird coincidence was what the sales person said in each shop. ...

1) Neither would even think about buying a camera that uses AA batteries. ...

2) They both seemed pretty keen on the Ixus 70 and ...

Consider the amount of commission the sales people would earn on the items they recommended -- you'll be much less confused.

There are good arguments for proprietary Lithium Hydride batteries, but they generally don't apply to your stated need for "a camera to take on a trip."

 

[SweetErika]

Consider the amount of commission the sales people would earn on the items they recommended -- you'll be much less confused.

There are good arguments for proprietary Lithium Hydride batteries, but they generally don't apply to your stated need for "a camera to take on a trip."

My thoughts exactly.

We get fine battery life out of AA batteries, even when we're using the flash. I'd say we get around 200 pics on a single charge? My husband took pics for 6 weeks last spring on one battery charge (he estimates the number at at least 200). We do turn the camera off when we won't be taking pics for a few minutes, but we've never had a problem, and it's nice to know we can always get new batteries (usually quite cheaply, I might add) wherever we are. Plus, AA batteries go in a lot of things (from remotes to sex toys!), so it pays to have rechargeables and a charger here.

It didn't look like the Fuji battery was too bad (about $10 on Amazon), but I'm guessing they're more in a camera store and some of them (like the sony, IIRC) are REALLY expensive (more like $50).

Did you look at the prices of the cameras at the shop compared to Amazon's prices?

Also, do you have a power converter? If you buy something there and want to plug it in here or other countries, you'll need it. If you buy something here to plug in elsewhere, you'll also need it. If it's dual voltage, you'll just need the plug adapter(s).

You'd better hurry up and decide, unless you want to have no choice of where you buy it, get something here (which may not be a bad idea for accessories, like a case and extra cards and even batteries + a charger, if you'll have some time), or just take what you already have on this trip.

 

[naxalite0906]

My thoughts exactly.

We get fine battery life out of AA batteries, even when we're using the flash. I'd say we get around 200 pics on a single charge? My husband took pics for 6 weeks last spring on one battery charge (he estimates the number at at least 200). We do turn the camera off when we won't be taking pics for a few minutes, but we've never had a problem, and it's nice to know we can always get new batteries (usually quite cheaply, I might add) wherever we are. Plus, AA batteries go in a lot of things (from remotes to sex toys!), so it pays to have rechargeables and a charger here.

It didn't look like the Fuji battery was too bad (about $10 on Amazon), but I'm guessing they're more in a camera store and some of them (like the sony, IIRC) are REALLY expensive (more like $50).

Did you look at the prices of the cameras at the shop compared to Amazon's prices?

Also, do you have a power converter? If you buy something there and want to plug it in here or other countries, you'll need it. If you buy something here to plug in elsewhere, you'll also need it. If it's dual voltage, you'll just need the plug adapter(s).

You'd better hurry up and decide, unless you want to have no choice of where you buy it, get something here (which may not be a bad idea for accessories, like a case and extra cards and even batteries + a charger, if you'll have some time), or just take what you already have on this trip.

The prices in the shops I went to were comparable to amazon (once I included the delivery charge). Not much more, and I would happily pay that small amount extra just for the chance to be able to try each one first and have people talk to me about each camera and offer advice. Plus I do have a power adapter (I will be taking my laptop too, so I will need one, but I also think that some cameras come with other leads too so they can be used abroad which I thought was quite a handy thing. I think the lithium battery will last the trip considering I am not planning on taking 100s of pictures, but I will have the charger just in case. I am not planning, and doubt I will ever plan, a trip where I will be travelling in remote places for days with no access to power, so the idea of a smaller camera that uses lithium batteries does appeal to me too. I am popping to the shops today and tomoro and will buy one before I leave on tuesday morning, that is for sure.

 

[SweetErika]

OK.

Watch the prices on any extras carefully and do factor the cost of the replacement/backup batteries into your decision (see how much they cost online beforehand), so you can afford an extra in case the primary one craps out on you. It happens (BTW, it's also a good idea to compare the manufacturers' warranties on the cameras before you buy...some are totally lousy nowadays and peace of mind is worth a lot).

Hopefully you'll at least have a final look at the editor/expert and user reviews of the cameras you're considering and get one with a viewfinder.

For the future, Amazon has free shipping if you plan ahead. I've never paid for shipping and my stuff has always arrived before they said it would.

Good luck with your purchase and trip.

 

[naxalite0906]

OK.

Watch the prices on any extras carefully and do factor the cost of the replacement/backup batteries into your decision (see how much they cost online beforehand), so you can afford an extra in case the primary one craps out on you. It happens (BTW, it's also a good idea to compare the manufacturers' warranties on the cameras before you buy...some are totally lousy nowadays and peace of mind is worth a lot).

Hopefully you'll at least have a final look at the editor/expert and user reviews of the cameras you're considering and get one with a viewfinder.

For the future, Amazon has free shipping if you plan ahead. I've never paid for shipping and my stuff has always arrived before they said it would.

Good luck with your purchase and trip.

Yeah, I know amazon has free shipping, I use it alot
Just, in this case, I only really decided last minute that I wanted a camera, so the free shipping was not an option, it would always have been express delivery.
And for a small monthly fee (like 2 bucks a month for twelve months) I can extend the warranty for three years which covers everything except theft which is pretty handy. Obviously this is in the shops I went to and not online. I also told them I could purchase extras more cheaply from amazon, so both were prepared to offer me packages which was very competitive to amazon. As cheap as online can be, its nice tobe able to try things in the store first and actually get a feel for the camera, so that is why I decided not to use amazon, and for 5/10 pounds more, I will be happy to pay that just for peace of mind if I can see and hold the camera first.
I am going back there now, and will go tomoro too, so I will tell you what I chose, but right now I am split between the fuji ones, or the canon ixus (which does have a viewfinder, which was a nice surprise).

 

[Weird Harold]

And for a small monthly fee (like 2 bucks a month for twelve months) I can extend the warranty for three years which covers everything except theft which is pretty handy. Obviously this is in the shops I went to and not online.

FWIW, statistically most electronics either fail within the first 90 days or they outlast any amount of extension you might buy for the warranty. Since the cameras you're considering have moving parts (the zoom lenses) an extended warranty might pay off, but extended warranties are generally wasted money for electronics.

 

[CTYankee]

Most "warranties" -- whether original or extended -- are limited to DEFECTS, and specifically exclude DAMAGE.

Those telescoping tubes that make up the focus and zoom mechanism in the lens are extremely fragile. Inevitably a dropped camera will land on the extended tube ("butter side down", as they say), and even a "bump" (as opposed to a "drop") can do them in.

The other warranty-busters are water and/or sand.

Protection plans that specifically INCLUDE damage from either impact or foreign substances are few and far between, but they're out there.

Whether they're worth it or not is a personal decision. I only insure what I can't afford to replace.