Make it snappy

Time to replace the old box brownie - anyone suggest a decent compact, with self timer/tripod screw, for under ?100..?

Out of interest what do other people use..?

Go for an APS camera the film loading is easy with cold hands and many of them are 'weather proof'. The list is endless at ?100, nip into Boots, Dixons etc and be amazed at the quantity, there may some fully waterproof ones in this price these days.
I use an Olympus and have never had pictures of such good quality, although some of my mates are the same with their camera's. Another good point is that modern camera's now date all the photograph's on the back, making trying to remember a thing of the past.

My wife bought me the new Fuji digital for Christmas and it is superb. Its about ?200 but the quality is staggering (apparently it uses a new way of generating the images that properly uses all the pixels - buggered if I know though). You can also do 30 second video clips. Stores up to 45 pictures a time, never need to buy a film and is environmentally friendly !

All I need to do now is catch a fish......

Chris, if you're interested I have an Olympus MJU compact for sale.
Features tripod screw and self-timer.
Comes with original box, soft leather case and full instructions etc.
Email me direct if interested.

Whatever camera you decide upon in the end I would humbly suggest something to go with it. If you have the time sign up for an evening class in photography at your local Tech college. They usually run short courses and will improve your photography no end irrespective of the quality of your camera. I have noticed specialised digital courses are now being offered.

Kevan

Is that where you honed your skills Kevan? lol

Nope. It's the reason I suggested it in the first place. Actually I took a video course and learned a fantastic amount from that. Take no notice of that picture of mine. It was taken with an old Intel webcam. There is not much you can do to improve the image with one of those things. I can't be bothered to get another pic done as I actually hate posing for a camera.

Kevan

Seriously, I'd go cheap digital: cheap in case you drop it in the drink, and also because things are changing so fast that spending a lot of dosh is daft, you might want to upgrade before you think.

ps Kevan, so you can't manipulate the image on your mugshot to ditch the Elvis-in-Las Vegas shirt! lol

If you want to spend ?100 Chris, then spend it on a good compact from Canon or Olympus. Your choice of digital in that price bracket will not buy much and as you'll only be taking pictures of big fish, they'll always be worth wasting a roll of film on. If you go sub-?150 digital you'll get less than usable shots if you want to reproduce them (ask your graphics people at EDP, they'll give you the SP about cheap digitals) If you get a really good fish (sorry another really good fish) and use a cheap digital then the quality would be unacceptable for reproduction in the angling press and you'll have learnt a lesson the hard way. Also whilst you'll probably get a facility to connect a tripod or bank stick, you may not have a self-timer or any of the helpful features that a small compact will have. Canon and Olympus produce some remarkably good small cameras which have the features that you are looking for, but more to the point they have small seriously sharp lenses which in all but very low light or 'moving subject' situations will produce usable pictures.
If you can find one that's weatherproof then grab it. Don't forget you can have pictures developed onto a digital disk that will allow you to manipulate the image or send them as e-mail attachments.
I have four cameras knocking around the office including 1 megapixel and three megapixel digitals and an Olymus SLR with all the lenses. The one I take fishing is an old Olymus compact.
Whilst it's not a compact, the camera that a certain Mr Wakefield has on offer is a steal and will not only have a self-timer but may even have facilities to connect a foot cable release. Absolutely the business.

I know nothing of digital cameras,except that a friend at work spent ?300 on a nikon and he is not impressed with the results.
I bought an Olympus mju ii.It is an "ultra compact 35mm camera",it has a 35mm 1:2.8 lens that gives good results,it is weatherproof,it has a screw fitting for a tripod or bankstick adaptor,as an optional extra you can get an infra red remote release which will work when sealed in a plastic bag(as recommended by Jim Gibbinson).In addition its very small and light,you can carry it in a trouser pocket and hardly know it's there.Cost was ?80 for the camera and approx. ?20 for the release.Highly recommended.I am sure you'd find an Olympus web site if you search.

I'm going for this Moo thing I reckon.

Gerry, that's the most flattering thing anyone's said about me in ages.

The snag was it was so long since I'd caught a fish worth photographing the camera had got damp and a tad grubby in between times, so the pics were a tad grotty.

Andrew. I knew the pic was rough but I didn't know it was that bad I was actually wearing a t-shirt at the time with a hoody over it. It got crumpled up at the back making it look like a big collar. Elvis???? WHO???? That's bound to upset a few people. I'm more of a classical man myself - with a smattering of Floyd thrown in. But Elvis...please no....

Kevan

Before anyone buys a camera the first thing they've got to ask themselves is what do they want from it. If you need slides for magazine articles (most mags still insist on trannies) then it has to be a 35mm SLR. You can get away with prints if they're exceptional.

Otherwise, for web work, and providing you've got a PC and a printer, a digital is definitely the way to go. You'll pay more initially for a decent one but then the running costs are nil - no films and no processing to pay for, and the prints off a decent one are as good as off 35mm up to A4 size.

Also, with some models, you can take a minute or so of video (MPEG). The casting clip in Rik's recent Carp Column was taken with a Fuji 4700Z digital stills camera.

Its all right getting a nice camera and learning how to use it but one day you have to give it to someone else and say "take picture please".
I have had my fuji dropped once and the classic is they press the button three or four times and say right ,put fish back then find out they havnt taken any.
its a funny ole game.

I take 2 cameras fishing, a tiny Kodak DC3800 digital and a top of the range Olympus weatherproof compact.

The Kodak has 2.1 megapixels and I have to say I can see little or no difference between it and a quality 35mm camera, except for enlargements of 10x8ins - but even then you have to look very carefully. It comes complete with a card reader making uploading to a computer very easy.

For magazine/book shots I use the Olympus loaded with transparancy film. However, the way digitals are improving I can foresee a time when I'll use nothing else.

One other advantage of a digital is that you can immediately see if you've got the shot correctly. Particularly useful if you give the camera to someone else to take the picture! So no more worrying whether you've lost the pic of a fish of a lifetime.

Purchased a Cannon Digital Ixus V in mid October. Me and the missus have taken over 3000 shots on it. Once saved to disk you can keep them for ever. In 10 years you wont see a 'film' camera.

What Steve says about no seeing the difference is correct. Once in a frame the digi pics look better than the film pics.

The only problem with digital pictures is that they are easy to 'manipulate', if you know what I mean.
You could even 'create' a photo of the editor opening his wallet in Pub!!!

No there are some things that can't be manipulated and that is one of them!!!!LOL
Mind you if we could get Fifi the french teacher on one side of him and miss Whiplash on the other that sort of manipulation might just work!!!!LOL