Please.


I have a gift card for Best Buy. I know Arfcom hates Best Buy but its a gift card and I never shopped there before so I dont care about the horror stories. (though its always good to have a heads up)

Anyway my old el cheapo Kodak CX4310 has served me extremely well but its  little slow on the shots. I want to be able to get decent pic of my kid pitching and get some nice indoor shots. I have narrowed it down to two cameras.

One is the Kodak Z730 and the other is the Nikon Coolpix 5600. Both are in the price range I will be in and bother seem to do what I want. Wel I think. I see the Kodak has better ISO settings. I really dont know what that means but when I used a 35mm the 400 film took the best pictures and I will feel good knowing my digital it capable of that.

I dont know much about shutter settings but to me it looks like the Nikon is a bit faster but the ISO is low but maybe it raises automatically?

I want to be able to tae decent shots in low light. Lets say a staes when teh kids have a play and I cant use flash.

is there a huge difference between 1/2000 and 1/3000 when it comes to gettng a decent shot? The old one was 1/1000.

The max. shutter is only helpful for high-speed photography.  most shots are 1/50-1/250th i'd wager.  Checking exif on about 10k pics I see I've done over 1/1000 a handful of times (outdoor shots of sports or bees and such).  That's a pretty general usage, if you do a lot of action shots, might be nice on occasion to have the faster shutter.  I lived with 1/2000 and haven't felt limited by it yet.

I'm sure either camera will be more than sufficient.  Try not to compare digital and film ISO's too much, they're similar but not always the same.   ISO 100 would normally be better to get shots at, the higher the ISO the more likely you are to experience dithering and light bleed and other fun things.  400 just allows for faster shots than 100 in the same light (about 4x, so a 1/60th shutter at iso 100 would translate to about 1/250 at iso400).  For snapshot shooting, leaving the camera in auto mode will likely pic an ISO setting for you.  Unless you get to printing enlargements might not be a big deal.

In short, hold them both and see which one fits in your hand better and get that one.  

Quoted: The max. shutter is only helpful for high-speed photography.  most shots are 1/50-1/250th i'd wager.  Checking exif on about 10k pics I see I've done over 1/1000 a handful of times (outdoor shots of sports or bees and such).  That's a pretty general usage, if you do a lot of action shots, might be nice on occasion to have the faster shutter.  I lived with 1/2000 and haven't felt limited by it yet. I'm sure either camera will be more than sufficient.  Try not to compare digital and film ISO's too much, they're similar but not always the same.   ISO 100 would normally be better to get shots at, the higher the ISO the more likely you are to experience dithering and light bleed and other fun things.  400 just allows for faster shots than 100 in the same light (about 4x, so a 1/60th shutter at iso 100 would translate to about 1/250 at iso400).  For snapshot shooting, leaving the camera in auto mode will likely pic an ISO setting for you.  Unless you get to printing enlargements might not be a big deal. In short, hold them both and see which one fits in your hand better and get that one.

Thanks for the info.

Nikon

I would go with Nikon too.  I have the Nikon 7700 (looks similar to the one you've picked out  with 7mp)  it is awesome.  

Without a doubt, NIKON!

You want the Canon A610.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7323586&type=product&id=1118844389826

I love Canon cameras/optics. Nikon is in the same league, but I prefer the Canon user interface better.

Something that takes a standard memory card, AA batteries (great for travel), and a good movie mode are what sold me on upgrading my Canon A80.

I am leaning to Nikon myself but the reviews on that model are not that great. Many complaints of it taking around 30 seconds in between shots if using the flash.

BTW thanks fotr the replys. I am considering spending the extra $50 and looking at the Sonys. I am getting tempted by the burst feature. ISO equivelants up to 400, 1/200 so far same as Kodack, but thhat burst thing looks like something I may want to get  gander at.

I like candid shots. I like to capture people in their natural state, not regular lets all stand and smile shots. My girlfriend will be doing that mostly and the camera we have now is ok but not great, especially in low light. I want to  be able to do that but also be able to get action shots with a fairly quick follow up.

With Sony, you would be spending that extra $50 plus some for the shiny S O N Y on the camera. Stick with Nikon, Canon, or Panasonic. Personal picks would be the Nikon Coolpix 7600, Coolpix S1, Canon SD450, or Panasonic FX9 (or its predecessor the FX8).

Regarding lenses, generally the optical quality of the SLR lenses are as ranking:

1. Leica
2. Nikon/Zeiss (Win in some areas with some lenses, lose with the others)
3. Canon
4, Newer Sigma/Tamron
5. The old Sigma/Tamron lenses

In regards to point and shoots, it alsmost does not matter as the lenses will most likely outresolve the tiny sensor in these types of cameras. Also, there is not usually a significant difference in recycle times between cameras using flash because the capacitors all take roughly the same time to recharge with a slight advantage going to lithium ion powered cameras.

ISO
You don't want to shoot these cameas at or above ISO400. Stick to the lower ones (ISO 100 or 50 for the best image quality). You will get prety bad noise at ISO 400 and even worse at ISO 800 if the camera goes that high.

Sorry if I seem critical of the point and shoot cameras. Just angry with the companies releasing crap and making it up with misleading advertising.