[dtaylorl]

I'm planning on going to Europe for a month in the spring and am think of buying a cheap (under $100) point-and-shoot digital camera to bring with me. To be honest, I hate taking pictures and know almost nothing about photography, but I also know I will want to have some pictures to look back at my trip afterwards. Any suggestions on the best digital camera under $100? In the little research I have done these are the ones I have seen recommended a few times:
Canon Powershot A800/1200 or 3000/3300is (would have to be on sale to get under $100)
Panasonic Lumix DMC-S3

The Panasonic and the 3000/3300is have optical image stabilization which seems like it could be a good thing. The cheaper Cannons take AA batteries, which would be convenient when travelling. What else should I be looking for?

The other thing I have thought about is selling my iPod Touch and entry-level Android phone and buying a high-end smartphone with a good camera. This has the added benefit of getting me a good phone, which I will probably use a lot more than any camera. I don't know how the camera quality on a good smartphone compares to a cheap point-and-shoot... the one thing that comes to mind right away is the lack of an optical zoom. Is this a bad idea, or are some of the cameras in phones comparable to the cameras I am looking at?

[Rainer.]

My gut feeling is that the Canon in your range will do you well. Canon usually comes out with good point and shoots on the optical quality and user interface end of things, which is really the most important thing. The sensor on any of those things is gonna be pretty comparable.

Image stabilization: Yes, very, very good thing. You'll notice it as a much lower proportion of blurry photos.

Battery: AAs just seem like such a waste to me. I'd go rechargable all the way. As long as you remember to recharge everyday, I doubt you'll have a problem. I'd certainly go for something that will be of use to you after the trip.

Cameraphone: I have an iPhone 4S with the 8MP camera, and as a photographer, I'm actually really happy with it. Yes, you're living without optical zoom (in photography-land we call that a "prime lens"), but you're getting a super convenient device that's always with you and has a lot of other functions. At f/2.4 and with a few less pixels on the sensor, the iPhone 4S is actually better in low light than the low-end P&S cameras, as far as sensors are concerned. Cameras do have an optical advantage, and you'll have to decide if the increase in quality is important to you (bigger lenses, better optical quality [actually, more, wider lens elements, better optical quality, which is a bit of a different story]). If you're not cool with just digital zoom, there are also lens attachments for smartphones, if you're nerdy like that.

[dtaylorl]

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Image stabilization: How big is the difference between optical and digital image stabilization? The cheaper Canons do have digital stabilization, but not optical. Any idea if more expensive phone would have some sort of digital stabilization?

Battery: I have rechargeable AAs. I could keep a few extra sets charged as spares in case my battery dies and I don't have anywhere to charge them. We will likely be staying in hostels in Europe and I guess I am somewhat concerned that it may sometimes be difficult to charge the battery or that I may simply forget.

Cameraphone: Any idea which phones have the best cameras? The iPhone 4s seems to be what most of the review sites compare to, but I'm not sure if that is because it has a really good camera, or just because it is an iPhone. Most likely I will be looking at an Android device.

[Rainer.]

Digital image stabilization isn't really image stabilization at all, and can generally be disregarded. As far as smartphones, I know some iPhone apps can use the accelerometer in the phone to wait until the phone is still to take a shot, not exactly image stabilization, but can be useful. It's good to remember that, in general, keeping a camera still as possible when taking a shot will keep the image from blurring, with or without IS.

Battery: In that case, whatever works for you. I mean, you're either charging a specific camera battery, or charging rehargable AAs. Either way... My gut feeling is that you'll get longer battery life with a camera with a dedicated battery, but I could be wrong.

Cameraphones: I'm stuck in iOS world, sorry.

[normajean777]

I heard somewhere that you only need like 3 to 5 MP for a great 4x6 print. If thats what you are planning to do, a phone would do the job much better than a camera. And if your just putting them on FB, it could be even less.

I had an iPhone 4, and the camera was quite good for taking great pictures. My current iPhone 4s is slightly better. Its great that you can touch the portion of the frame to focus on any part that you want. Pics are all clear, and they are even alright in the dark. Videos in the dark don't always work out well though. And theres some nice cheap editing apps for fun.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I heard somewhere that you only need like 3 to 5 MP for a great 4x6 print. If thats what you are planning to do, a phone would do the job much better than a camera. And if your just putting them on FB, it could be even less.

This is one of those things that comes down to glass/camera quality. We have a 6MP DSLR that out-shoots a lot of P&S cameras rated at twice the MP. We've done prints at 5x7 without any issues (can't remember if we've done bigger).

That being said, there are some really high quality P&S cameras on the market now. Of course the ones I've seen were not sub-$100.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I heard somewhere that you only need like 3 to 5 MP for a great 4x6 print. If thats what you are planning to do, a phone would do the job much better than a camera. And if your just putting them on FB, it could be even less.

There are three main factors at play in this situation when it comes to image quality: resolution, optical quality, and sensor quality. Let's unpack them one at a time.

Here's a better look at minimum print resolutions, based on what most printers print at, and the generally accepted minimum resolution for high print quality, 300dpi (dots/pixels per inch).
4"x6" : 1200x1800 : 2.16MP
5"x7" : 1500x2100 : 3.15MP
8"x10" : 2400x3000 : 7.20MP
11"x14" : 3300x4200 : 13.86MP
16"x20" : 4800x6000 : 28.80MP
Stay at the minimum size or higher, and you'll get prints that are just fine in terms of resolution.

Sensor quality, compact cameras edge out smartphones, though if we all wait about a year or so, sensor quality in smartphones is going to drastically improve. Lower quality sensors are more prone to noise and grain and often don't pick up colors as well as high quality sensors.

Optical quality, compact cameras are far better than smartphones, again, because of real lenses. You'll have fewer optical distortions with a camera lens, and often you'll do better in low light because of aperture size (though the iPhone 4S at least has a f/2.4 aperture, which is at least comparable to most P&S cams).

And smartphones don't have zoom lenses like compact cameras. You're stuck with digital zoom, which is basically cropping the full image.

[Cam42]

The iPhone 4S is probably the best mobile phone camera right now.

[SporkV]

Probably fits a little better here....

[dtaylorl]

I ended up picking up a PowerShot ELPH 100 HS for a really good price. Seems to get lots of really good reviews, especially for taking pictures in a darker setting. I also like the compact size.