Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25, 2003, 5:27 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12
Default HP, sony, nikon

Hi
I want to buy a digicam (my first) and was thinking of buying the HP 812 Photosmart because of it's low price for a 4MP. But this is the point, how come for so many MP it has such a low price compared to the others? Which are its pros and cons?
My other choice was the SONY Cyber Shot DSC-P72, which costs more and the Nikon Coolpix 3500.
Can you tell me which is the best out of these three or other digicams in this price range.
Thanks in advance
Roby
roby is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 26, 2003, 1:55 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

From what I have read (mainly at cnet.com) the hp's are inexpensive because they lack many of the manual settings that other camera companies have. The camera is good for point and shoot, though, so if you don't want to mess around with manual to much, i'd go with it.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2003, 2:33 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

HP make computers (terrible ones at that) .. not cameras.

Would you buy a PC made by Leica?
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2003, 4:52 AM   #4
Moderator
 
selvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,204
Default

Roby,

Before you make a decision which camera to buy look at your budget and what you intend to do with the camera.
It is true that HP Photosmart cameras tend to be cheaper because they offer less options and their lens assembly don't have the higest grade glass. However, if you're not taking pictures for a living or displaying your prints to a very critical audience (this might include yourself) then an HP camera may fit the bill.
If you don't have access to digicams to try them out I urge you to take a look the various sites like "Steve's Digicam" that provide impartial reviews of digicams.

Please remember that the camera is only one part of the equation that contributes to a picture you can look at and say "wow".
the following was taken with a relatively inexpensive HP Photosmart 2MP camera. Aloha


selvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2003, 6:41 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Frank Doorhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,320
Default

Hi,

I have used a HP812 and it's a marvelous machine, however it is a simple point and click camera, if you want to play some get the HP850 (which I'm using now).

By the way, HP is a brand which is well known for it's printers and imaging stuff, when they started selling PC's it went downwards with the good name.

I'm in NO way a HP fan, but for the price it's one of the best choices I guess.

Greetings,
Frank
Frank Doorhof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2003, 7:57 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 16
Default i've a HP720

i've a HP720, and for the price and whar i want, it's very. very good..,

Before i've a HP315 and for a basic camera like that, it's a very good image quality... and i took more than 4.000 photos with not only a problem...


HP it's not only a PC Company... and what's the problem with a PC branded LEICA... i don't see any problem...

Who know's if LEICA can do in the future, great PCs and you go buy one

(sorry my bad english :? )
jmpub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2003, 8:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

Read the reviews on dpreview and you will see a noticible weakness in HP photo quality compared to traditional camera brands.
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2003, 8:09 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

Read the reviews on dpreview and you will see a noticible weakness in HP photo quality compared to traditional camera brands.
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2003, 2:26 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

Alfisti, about your comment on hp being a computer company, by your same argument i take it you would never buy a sony camera as they make computers, gaming consoles, etc., or a fuji camera (they do a lot of things other than cameras, and besides, they are known by many as more of a film company), canon because they happen to make printers, kodak, because they are once again, a film company, panasonic because they are an electronics company and the list goes on. Also, of course the image quality may not be as great as a 4mp oly or canon, what do you expect? It is cheaper than a 4mp oly or canon by a lot. By your logic the minolta s414 is a piece of garbage because it doesn't offer all of the features that that other 4mp digicams for nearly double the price do. You get what you pay for, and frankly, as long as you are happy with the image quality, does it really matter if the lens isn't the best ever?
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2003, 3:16 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 0
Default

I recently upgraded purchased the s414 to replace my HP 850. The Hp served me well, as the first digital Ive owned. It allowed me to take some great tele shots. The camera developed a problem where the lens "froze" in the extended position, requiring me to power down the unit, or even remove the batteries in order to re-set the camera. Sams Club refunded the money for the purchase, so I decided to try the S414 while deciding on a DSL type to purchase this winter. [/img]
azupsman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:48 AM.