Lightweight point-and-shoot for documents

[jim]

I don't know the first thing about cameras, but I do know that my phone (HTC Sensation) does a somewhat adequate job of recording documents. I basically take a vast number of photos, and review them at a later date, so provided the writing is legible, the quality isn't at all important.

Problem with the Sensation that it's not very easy to keep stable, the zoom is sometimes a little iffy in macro, and the battery isn't really adequate to take photos for long periods of time (i.e. up to 8 hours). So I'm looking to get a fairly cheap camera to do the job of taking pictures instead, and ideally something very lightweight and easy to slip into my pocket as well. The other thing that might be a factor is that sometimes flash isn't an option, so a decent picture in low-light is pretty important.

I'm not averse to spending £60 or maybe more, but is there any point? I really don't have a clue whether the most bargain basement options would be sufficient, given the limited requirements I have.

[chuckskull]

Have you considered a hand held scanner if it's just for documents? They generally come in around your price range, I don't know enough to recommend any particular one but the couple I've used worked well.

[Saracen]

Are you after a camera to take pictures of documents, or do you want a camera that must also take decent pictures of documents?

If the first is true, then unless you need it when you're out and about, PC-less, surely a budget scanner would be a far better option?

Even if you are out and about, there are portable scanners, that can be carried with you, operate from batteries and I've seen some over the years (that may no longer be available) that can operate standalone, store documents captured, and upload later. Portable scanners may come to a bit more than £60, though.

If you specifically want a camera, though, it's not something I do very often with a camera, but the only thing that crosses my mind as instantly desirable is some form of image stabilisation (to remove or at least minimise camera shake). To be fair, most half-decent cameras have some form, though as £60, you may have to be a bit careful, as last time I looked, it would have been borderline with the very budget models that didn't have that.

As a budget for a camera, it's low, and that means you certainly won't get high end features, or high end lenses. That said, even budget cameras are capable of pretty good image quality these days.

Sorry I can't be more help.

[Saracen]

Note to Snooty - I might have a portable scanner laying about. If I do, it'll be Canon, and either unused, or very nearly unused. It'll also be a few years old so I don't know about what OS's it supports. It was for a project that never happened. If you want me to rummage, I'll see if I can find it. I may, though, have already sold it.

[Bobster]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HANDHELD-P...40776405951%26

[jim]

Have you considered a hand held scanner if it's just for documents? They generally come in around your price range, I don't know enough to recommend any particular one but the couple I've used worked well.

To be honest, I'd never heard of them. Looking though, I have a feeling it won't be much use. I'm anticipating using it on documents up to 250 years old and I think touching the page (or indeed hovering just over it) with a scanner will probably scare the living daylights out of any staff. And me, for that matter.

Are you after a camera to take pictures of documents, or do you want a camera that must also take decent pictures of documents?

If the first is true, then unless you need it when you're out and about, PC-less, surely a budget scanner would be a far better option?

Even if you are out and about, there are portable scanners, that can be carried with you, operate from batteries and I've seen some over the years (that may no longer be available) that can operate standalone, store documents captured, and upload later. Portable scanners may come to a bit more than £60, though.

If you specifically want a camera, though, it's not something I do very often with a camera, but the only thing that crosses my mind as instantly desirable is some form of image stabilisation (to remove or at least minimise camera shake). To be fair, most half-decent cameras have some form, though as £60, you may have to be a bit careful, as last time I looked, it would have been borderline with the very budget models that didn't have that.

As a budget for a camera, it's low, and that means you certainly won't get high end features, or high end lenses. That said, even budget cameras are capable of pretty good image quality these days.

Sorry I can't be more help.

Solely for documents, I don't take photos of anything else (sad git-itis ). And yes, 95% of usage will be on the road, in libraries etc with no laptop, so anything non-portable won't be an option.

I'm being pretty stingy, I know, but in all honesty I have no idea what difference it would make buying a £30 or £300 camera, given my very limited usage scenario. My mind says it probably doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but I defer to the superior knowledge of HEXUS.

Is there any appreciable difference in stability/macro quality/weight/size between these cheapy options? And is there a benefit to sticking with particular brands at this price point? A relative of mind is a huge DSLR snob and insists that the only cameras worth buying are Nikons, but bearing in mind the snob element I'm inclined to think that's not true.

[Bobster]

see my link..

[Saracen]

.... I'm anticipating using it on documents up to 250 years old and I think touching the page (or indeed hovering just over it) with a scanner will probably scare the living daylights out of any staff. And me, for that matter.
....

Point taken.

There are, of course, document scanners designed for old documents, and example being the devices used by the National Archives (or their contractors) for digitising old records, like census returns, BMD records (or quarterly summaries), etc. But from what I've seen of them, they aren't portable or anything close to it, and they no doubt are in a different stratosphere to your proposed budget.

For your purposes, you certainly can use a compact camera. I've done it, and in more or less that environment (in my case, some old church records that they were quite prepared to let me see, and even, with care, handle, but no way were they being put in a scanner, much less a sheet-fed device like the Canon I mentioned I have .... and I do have it, by the way). The results were not as good as with a scanner, but there were perfectly good enough for my use. The camera I used, though, was a bit more up-market than the budget you mention.

One option that will increase quality, albeit dramatically reduce portability, is a "copy stand". You can mount the camera on a fixed stand, pointing down. You place the target underneath it. You can, optionally, have external lighting. The camera is then fixed and steady, and the subject properly lit. But of course, it'll up the budget, you still need the camera, and it's a lot of clobber to carry around, even assuming the library will let you set it up. The advantages? Quality of results, and entirely non-contact with the subject matter.

As for the "Nikon snobbery", to suggest they're the only worthwhile cameras is purely fatuous. Hasselblad and Leica, to name but two, might have something to say about that.

Also, while Nikon are indeed very good, I defy anyone but an expert, and even most experts, to tell the difference, in almost all circumstances, between a top class image taken on a Nikon or a Canon, and most likely, you can add Pentax, Sony, etc, to that.

As for differences between various models in your price range, I'm no expert. I haven't tested anything in that range (with one exception) for years, so I'm well out of date. The exception was when the mother-in-law wanted a budget digital camera, mainly because it was getting harder and harder to find places locally that processed film. I looked around, and ended up with a "budget" Panasonic that, due to end-of-line clearances, was within her (and your) budget. I don't remember the model number (and it's no doubt unavailable now anyway) but it was one of the "Leica" lens models, and the images were surprisingly good for a £60 camera. I'd be inclined to stick to Panasonic, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, etc.

As for features, yes, they vary, as does build quality. One of the things that varies is size. If you want especially small, and light, then price tends to go up as they go down.

Do keep an eye on deals as new models come out, though. You can get significant discounts if you want a better-spec, and time it right.

[Saracen]

see my link..

My bet is that the problem lies with

.... I'm anticipating using it on documents up to 250 years old and I think touching the page (or indeed hovering just over it) with a scanner will probably scare the living daylights out of any staff. And me, for that matter.....

It's not 100% clear from that listing, but it certainly seems to involve touching the document. If so, my guess is it's out.

[kalniel]

Solely for documents, I don't take photos of anything else (sad git-itis ). And yes, 95% of usage will be on the road, in libraries etc with no laptop, so anything non-portable won't be an option.

I'm being pretty stingy, I know, but in all honesty I have no idea what difference it would make buying a £30 or £300 camera, given my very limited usage scenario. My mind says it probably doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but I defer to the superior knowledge of HEXUS.

Is there any appreciable difference in stability/macro quality/weight/size between these cheapy options? And is there a benefit to sticking with particular brands at this price point? A relative of mind is a huge DSLR snob and insists that the only cameras worth buying are Nikons, but bearing in mind the snob element I'm inclined to think that's not true.

It's not true in the slightest.

What I would be looking for in your situation would be:
1) image stabilisation
2) low light performance
3) low lens distortion
4) lightness

While #4 can be achieved by cheapy cameras, the first 3 points cannot, so I would instantly be looking to get a camera second hand.

What you are not looking for is zoom range, you would not even need macro. That's handy, because those are things hard (read: expensive) to squeeze into a lightweight camera, especially without compromising other things.

Most brands have compact cameras from a few years ago that should fit your needs. Off the top of my head I'd look for something like a Canon Ixus 90 IS (from back in 2008) or equivalent. Eg:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-Digi...item2a246a1c91

Or as saracen correctly points out - a tripod/camera stand! Then you can eliminate most requirements and get anything that takes vaguely undistorted images (less easy than moving around with camera in hand though)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I would look at some of these Fuji refurbs:

http://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/refurbish...rder=price&p=3

One of these Canons would also do the job:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-IXUS...item5ae953370d

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-Powe...item43b3a242ff