Top Quality 6 Megapixel Digital Camera for £25

ziffius

Carrie.F wrote:

Seems to me there is alot of camera snobbery around this thread.
This is not a high end camera!
This is near the lower end of the scale and has all the bells and whistles.

BUT and its a big BUT, the ops has posted an absolute bargain
If you've only got pennies to spend or need a camera to forget about with the kids on the beach, then it's a GRABBIT and well posted.

I've been on the beach and heard daddy having a fit 'cos little johnnys cop't hold of his Nikon mega bucks (out of date in 2 minutes) camera.

Keep it real - it's a great deal for £25 pounds.

There's no doubt that at £25 this is a great bargain, and there are many who have brought vivtar cameras who are happy with them. However, it doesn't have "all the bells and whistles".

There are no real in depth reviews or comparisons to other cameras. Limited specs on their website, so how do you know really what you are getting?

For someone who wants a basic point and shoot camera is great, but those who care about their photos may want more than this.

I have a 2 year Canon which isn't out of date and still makes good money on eBay.

Gadget-guy

I have been involved in Digital photography for a couple of years now and have spent a lot of money :eek: , this offer for the premier camera form Superdrug is quite a good offer, I bought one for my son as he had a bit of an interest watching me take photos but I paid just under £100. This company decided a while ago to stop just making cameras for other very good camera companies and rebranded some with thier own Premier brand, so do not just dismiss this offer, it may not be top of the line but it is very good for this price

Saeed

I got a cheapie camera from Comet it was the IT Works 3.2 mega pixel for free although they were selling it for £45. what a load of tat! Sometimes the pictures are good in bright daylight other times they come out looking very yellow and I am definately not jaundiced. It is just a crap camera, that's all. If I had paid £45 for I would have been very unhappy. I saw on a previous thread about an Argos bargain camera, it was a Hitachi (or a generic which had been branded Hitachi) which was also producing yellow pictures like mine. I took this camera to london and was so annoyed when I got home due to yellowness, blurred pictures etc. It is only fit for the children or maybe the odd ebay photo. Actually I don't even use it for that as I would not get much if I put up an auction with these bad pcitures

The quality of the picture depends on the following factors:

1)Mega pixels (higher mega pixels do not necessarily give a better pciture, sometimes can be worse - if you don't believe me read up on about on the internet. Manufacturers are just trying to keep the gravy train rolling in by upping the mega pixels and fooling people into thinking more Mega pixel=better pics)
2)Lens (get decent lens canon, fuji, people who actually produce lenses)
3)Software processing inside the camera

If one of these is poor then it does not matter how good the others factors are! I bought a 2nd digital camera about 3 months after getting the freebie, it is a Canon A85 4mega pixel for £99 and I am absolutely impressed each time I get the pictures developed. Pay a bit extra and get one from a manufacturer who has a good track record for producing camera rather than a no-name brand. Trust me.

now_a_mum&skint

missionman wrote:

have you taken a look at the Kodak website clearance section. There were some good deals there and probably better quality.

Hi, that's where I got my camera, its a Kodak Easyshare 4mp, and Im delighted with it, so much so, that I bought a couple as gifts, they were £29.99 xx

HaroldHamsun

Saeed wrote:

I got a cheapie camera from Comet it was the IT Works 3.2 mega pixel for free although they were selling it for £45. what a load of tat! Sometimes the pictures are good in bright daylight other times they come ..

All the I.T. Works cameras I've seen have tiny lense - practically pinhole cameras.

I agree with what others have said, lens quality is the biggest factor in image quality. Even if the electronics are superb, a bad lens will always result in bad pictures.

competitionscafe

Idiophreak wrote:

Also, if I were to want a "top quality" 6mp camera I'd be expecting to pay £300+, not £90....

No need to pay that much for a decent digital 6mp camera, you can get a decent one for around £90:

Sony 6mp camera £79.99
http://www.currys.co.uk/product.php?sku=939376

Canon 6mp camera £127.00
http://www.kkelectronics.co.uk/ViewProdDetails.asp?Prod_code=PON06C000006

Canon 5mp digital camera £94.00:
http://www.rankhour.com/details.php?pid=6717500152405365&caid=2&cbid=9&ccid=62

tin

Hmm. OK I got one of these, I wanted something I can lose if I should be so unlucky, and not cry over £300 of lost camera.

After taking a few test shots, a couple of observations:-

1) It's pretty competent feature-wise, so it's not missing features that make it such a low price.
2) It doesn't come with an SD card, and can fit only 3 pictures at max resolution into the internal memory. A joke IMHO, even if SD are cheap these days.
3) Theres *A LOT* of noise on the pictures it takes
4) The Duracells that come with it are completely flat, after a whole 10 shots. It was complaining of low battery after 4.

TBH it's not at all bad for a cheapo camera, but as many people have argued in this thread it's NOT "top quality". It's a low quality £50 camera being sold for £27.50 Still a bargain.

point 4 above, however, may mean it's going back to the shop. I'll have spent quadruple the camera's cost in Duracells before I can fill a 1 gig SD card!!!

Contains_Mild_Peril

That's more useful to know than the vague reviewer on Currys' website complaining of batteries only lasting "a few" pictures without specifying the batteries used. I wouldn't be surprised if cheap batteries ran out so quickly, but Duracells really ought to last a bit more than 10 shots. When you consider that getting good use out of this camera would also involve buying at least 3 sets of high-capacity rechargeable batteries, more if heavy use is intended (bear in mind children will often snap away fairly indiscriminately), it's not quite such good value for money as it first appears.

Saeed wrote:

The quality of the picture depends on the following factors:

1)Mega pixels (higher mega pixels do not necessarily give a better pciture, sometimes can be worse - if you don't believe me read up on about on the internet. Manufacturers are just trying to keep the gravy train rolling in by upping the mega pixels and fooling people into thinking more Mega pixel=better pics)
2)Lens (get decent lens canon, fuji, people who actually produce lenses)
3)Software processing inside the camera

If one of these is poor then it does not matter how good the others factors are!

That's almost true, but poor in-camera processing can often be corrected to some extent afterwards. More pixels can also be added later using interpolation, albeit with some loss of quality (as with in-camera interpolation). As far as I'm aware there is no post-capture remedy for lousy optics.

tin

Good news. It's lasted over 60 Flash shots so far with one set of 2500mAh (and, to be fair, rather old) Ni-MHs. It still says the battery is 2/3 but it did say that straight away when the Ni-MHs and the Duracells went in.

Funny. Wonder if it responds better to Ni-MHs (I understand they have a different discharge pattern to Alkaline?) or whether the pack in Duracells are just dodgy.

webuserisme

tin wrote:

Hmm. OK I got one of these, I wanted something I can lose if I should be so unlucky, and not cry over £300 of lost camera.

After taking a few test shots, a couple of observations:-

1) It's pretty competent feature-wise, so it's not missing features that make it such a low price.
2) It doesn't come with an SD card, and can fit only 3 pictures at max resolution into the internal memory. A joke IMHO, even if SD are cheap these days.
3) Theres *A LOT* of noise on the pictures it takes
4) The Duracells that come with it are completely flat, after a whole 10 shots. It was complaining of low battery after 4.

TBH it's not at all bad for a cheapo camera, but as many people have argued in this thread it's NOT "top quality". It's a low quality £50 camera being sold for £27.50 Still a bargain.

point 4 above, however, may mean it's going back to the shop. I'll have spent quadruple the camera's cost in Duracells before I can fill a 1 gig SD card!!!

You really should invest in a charger and some decent re-chargeables, tbh.