Best Camera for £40

[Varmint]

I am interested in a camera that I can take simple pictures with. Many of the photos I will be taking will be in the wilderness, and I would prefer a camera that is powered by batteries. Do you think the following camera is a good choice?

http://www.argos.co.uk/m/static/Prod...%3ECOOLPIX.htm

Thanks in advance,

Varmint

[kalniel]

Yeah it's fine. Certainly do the simple pictures thing. Picture quality is poor, roughly equivalent to phone cameras, but I'm guessing you want something pretty disposable.

You could also consider the old disposable camera and pay for pictures to be put on a CD when developed.

[g8ina]

A second hand Olympus Camedia 3040 or a Sony P93. Very rugged, very good pic quality, both run off AA batteries. I use both of these for my infrared conversions they are so good.

[Varmint]

Picture quality is poor, roughly equivalent to phone cameras, but I'm guessing you want something pretty disposable.

Can you conclude this from the specs alone? Isn't 10MP higher than most phone cameras, and reviews seem pretty good, so what tipped you about the picture quality? Not being defensive or anything, it's just that now you've introduced the idea of using a cell phone as a camera (which I would rather not do).

Thanks

[kalniel]

Can you conclude this from the specs alone? Isn't 10MP higher than most phone cameras, and reviews seem pretty good, so what tipped you about the picture quality? Not being defensive or anything, it's just that now you've introduced the idea of using a cell phone as a camera (which I would rather not do).

Thanks

Megapixels have nothing to do with quality. I have a 3.0MP camera that will take better pictures than this camera. You have to look at reviews that have assessed the image quality, which is dependant on the lens, light gathering and image processing decisions more than MP.

You can see sample images during this review:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digit...on-coolpix-l25

Specs aside, image quality isn't much of an improvement on what we see from smartphone cameras. Even in bright conditions, subtle details were mistaken for noise and smudged away by noise reduction, and sharp lines looked a little spidery. The centre of frames were reasonably sharp but focus deteriorated towards the edges, particularly on left side of the frame. This was strong enough to be visible even after we'd resized photos to fit on a computer screen

This other review is more positive overall - it is good value for money afterall, but still falls down on image quality, as I mentioned:
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equ...25-review.html

In terms of still image quality, the camera does okay at lower sensitivities, providing bright and colourful results in the default Standard setting. However, there are big question marks over the amount of detail the camera can capture.

But even these pictures will be better than no picture at all. Hence if you need something cheap and more camera control like than phone control like then it might be worth going for.

[kalniel]

If you're quick, this is a pretty good deal:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...rd_p=344320267