Camera Advice....

[DaMadFiddler]

So I'm looking at possibly upgrading from the bulky, older 2MP Kodak budget digicam I've been using...and I was wondering if anyone here might know of a good alternative. I read Consumer Reports, and I comparison-shop, but a store demo or magazine article is never quite the same as personal experience.

Anyway, here's the criteria:

-Must be 3 megapixel or higher
-Must be reasonably compact
-Must take either CompactFlash, SD, or disc media; I tend to get one or two larger, more expensive cards that I share between a number of devices, and I'm not switching everything over to MemoryStick just to suit Sony
-Must have at LEAST 2x (preferably 3x) optical zoom
-Must have 30fps video capture at VGA resolution or higher
-Preferably under $300, but I'll be willing to go a little over (I found a camera that matched all this perfectly for 200, but it was a Sony and thus took MemorySticks)
-Good battery life is a plus! That's part of why I'm so dissatisfied with my current model

[DaMadFiddler]

As I said, my ideal would be a miniaturized digital camcorder, which I would be willing to pay more for, but they don't make those small enough for my tastes.

[Zealous zerotype]

ok
my dad got this olympus for ~120bucks.
I can gvie link later on here is soem info I think 1.6inch lcd.
came with 16mb mem card.
4Mega pixels.

[someoneElse]

Video cameras really suck for still photography, about as much as using a still camera for videos. It doesn't matter how high the resolution is, the lenses are just made for one or the other, they can't do both really well with the same glass. I did however once see a camera that had a 'flippable' section to flip between two seperate lenses, one for video and one for stills, but it seemed a bit clumsy even if it was a good idea.

Another thing you may want to look for is a good macro mode. (For taking close up shots) It's a necessity for me, personally.

[DaMadFiddler]

Video cameras really suck for still photography, about as much as using a still camera for videos. It doesn't matter how high the resolution is, the lenses are just made for one or the other, they can't do both really well with the same glass. I did however once see a camera that had a 'flippable' section to flip between two seperate lenses, one for video and one for stills, but it seemed a bit clumsy even if it was a good idea.

Another thing you may want to look for is a good macro mode. (For taking close up shots) It's a necessity for me, personally.

I actually don't do that many macro shots. I primarily take three types of shots: portraits, "fun" friends/family quickpics, and landscape/large-scene nature shots.

[impetus]

darn it, you're not on AIM

I know you better than most people here, and in that knowledge i say "no" to: Olympus, Sony, HP, no-name brands, brands that are mainly known for something other than cameras, and most of all STAY AWAY FROM KODAK. No matter what the price tag, salesperson, or advertisements say.

There are some nice Nikons and Fujis well within the price range and specs you've mentioned. I recommend them in that order (Nikons, then Fuji). I'm not sure about 30 fps video, though. And, again, knowing you, thee models I'm mentioning are small and sleek, high quality, and typically use AA batteries.

I actually prefer the Fuji, but they use xD cards, which are not listed in your approved media. So get a Nikon.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... pe=product

Canons are also nice, but only in the bigger models (not the compact stuff you're looking for). Need more info, talk to me on AIM.

[Orange_Ribbon]

I have a Nikon cool pix, and it is a good tote man. I actually want to get a new camera (well I am a video person so I always want a new camera) I want something closer to a Manual camera. I miss having a light meter.