Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
1. Years ago I had a Nikon Coolpix 950 http://www.steves-digicams.com/nikon950/coolpix950_4views.jp... whose most awesome feature was the ability to aim the viewscreen at any angle with respect to the lens. Personally, I hardly ever want to take pictures with the camera held up at eye level, so after using that camera I've never understood why anyone would want a camera where the viewscreen is in line with the lens. You almost always want to hold the camera down low or up high in real life. At least I do. And that camera could very easily tilt the screen so I could see it without having to stoop down or climb up on something. Unfortunately, that camera was also really good at getting the exposure wrong, didn't have a whole lot of optical zoom, and doesn't have much resolution by today's standard.

Every once in a while, I see another camera that has some tilt or swivel screen. Lately, the Canon PowerShot N for example. These cameras always seem to have something that renders them completely unusable. As one review says http://www.trustedreviews.com/canon-powershot-n_Digital-Came... "features a new, unusually boxy design that is a combination of enjoyable and frustrating to use in equal measures" and "A muddled device that excites at first but ... accidental [touchscreen] presses and unwanted snaps of floors and ceilings were an all too frequent occurrence, even during our brief time with the camera".

Am I missing something, or is there no tilt-screen camera that's actually decent (in the general class of "point and shoot" and "fits in your pocket" not that the Coolpix 950 would). Still pictures, not video.

2. And still speaking of point-and-shoot, when I'm not holding my camera down low or up high as mentioned above, I'm usually trying to take a picture that includes myself. It seems obvious that one needs a remote shutter release to take such pictures. But there don't seem to be any point-and-shoot cameras with a wireless remote. Timers totally suck... everyone seems to just use the "ask a stranger to take the picture" technique. Or am I missing something again?

Speaking of "ask a stranger", here's a cool idea for a website. The plan is: Whenever you go on vacation to a tourist area or a resort or some such, you take pictures of other vacationers with wild abandon. The other vacationers do the same thing. You all upload the pictures to this website. Once you all get back from vacation, you download the pictures that random strangers have taken of you from the website. No coordination between anybody is required (though it'd probably help if you tell people the website name when they see you taking their picture); all that's necessary is that the concept and the website become popular enough that there's a reasonable chance someone is taking pictures of you. You get nothing in return for taking a bunch of photos of other people, except maybe kudos from them for your great photo skills, and of course you get other people taking pictures "for" you just like you're taking pictures "for" them.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I also make extensive use of a tilting and swiveling LCD screen on my cameras, but I'm using DSLRs instead of point and shoots. I don't know of any point and shoots with this feature, but the Sony NEX-F3 has a screen that tilts. It won't fit in a pocket, but it's a lot more compact than my DSLRs.

I agree about the website idea. With so many providers of free websites, it would be easy to set one up for a cruise or other vacation where the vacationers have a longer interaction than an afternoon at a specific location. It would be fun to have more pictures taken of us on our trips.

Grue
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
grue22,

I also make extensive use of a tilting and swiveling LCD screen on my cameras, but I'm using DSLRs instead of point and shoots. I don't know of any point and shoots with this feature...

Seems strange that such a useful feature is apparently non-existent. I think it's sort of interesting that apparently the PowerShot N's screen only tilts one way, but you just turn the whole camera upside down if you wanted to tilt the screen the other way.

Even cooler would be for the screen to be a completely separate piece, connected to the camera wirelessly. Maybe a "Google Glass"-type eyeglass-mounted display so you can hold the camera anywhere you want for the best shot... the camera itself would not need to be in your view.

It won't fit in a pocket, but it's a lot more compact than my DSLRs.

Not being principally a photographer, I'm pretty sure that if a camera won't fit in my pocket, when I'm ready to take a photo, that camera is going to be sitting at home. Which means I'd wind up missing the photo, or using my cellphone (which, given my current cellphone, is pretty much the same result either way).

With so many providers of free websites, it would be easy to set one up for a cruise or other vacation where the vacationers have a longer interaction than an afternoon at a specific location.

I'm thinking more in terms of a single website that everyone around the world can use now and forever. Of course you'd want it organized into various locations and cruises or you'd never be able to find anything. Clearly it could self-organize by date and time. With GPS it could self-organize the location, but I think a lot of people are still creeped out by that and would have GPS coordinates disabled or blocked... and lots of cameras don't have GPS (or people turn that feature off to get longer battery life).

Maybe give out T-shirts for people to wear that say "Get the photo I'm taking of you now for free at website.com!" and on the other side "Please take our picture and upload to website.com!"? Hmmm... not exactly vacation-friendly, unless you're vacationing at a geek convention.

It would be fun to have more pictures taken of us on our trips.

Yeah. Personally, my family is always too busy having fun to be bothered taking photos. But often there's time to take photos of others, like as you wait your turn for a zipline, or a wave machine, or whatever. It's a lot easier to take a photo of someone else as they go down the zipline than it is to take a photo of yourself doing the zipline. At a resort or on a cruise, the company will take photos but they charge way too much for them. Occasionally at resorts we'll "team up" with another family and take photos of each other, then we can swap USB drives or burn DVDs to exchange the photos. But that doesn't work as well as one might like, since we rarely wind up on all the same excursions at the same times.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
DPReview to the rescue!!!

http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras#criterias=Sp...

This *should* theoretically take you to DPReview, where I went to "Camera Feature Search" and then selected Ultra Compact and Compact, then showed the Advanced Search Filters, and selected "Articulated LCD." There are six fully articulated and seven tilting.

There's a couple of Nikon Coolpix on there are a couple of Canon Powershots besides the N that look good, and several have been fully reviewed so you can see what they say.

On that feature search, you can also go ahead and filter for "Remote Control", which gives you a total of five cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras#criterias=Sp...

Of those, I'd say the Canon Powershot G11 or G12, or the Nikon Coolpix P7100 might work for you.

Personally, I prefer the timers, I usually find that a 10-second timer works well for my purposes.

What do you think you can do with a remote that you can't do with a timer? Just wondering. What I tend to find is problematic (and hence the "stranger take the picture" thing) is finding somewhere for my camera to BE, which usually involves "floating in midair" and I usually do not carry a tripod. At that point, I'm not looking for a shutter release, I'm looking for someone to BE the tripod.

Also, you may want to look for a Gorillapod. Little, flexible tripod that you can wrap around a street sign or something else. It's really helped me more than once!

GSF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think GSF helped you out there.

Speaking only for me, I never use the LCD screen except to check the shot when I'm done. Eye-to-viewfinder is how I shoot over 99% of my shots. If there is a crowd or obstruction I may hold the camera up, with with a DSLR (and a good lens) it's pretty awkward to do so. Much easier with a P&S.

In my case it's not a problem because I tend to should outdoor scenics. Very seldom to I have to hold a camera over my head to "see" past the crowd (of other people holding THEIR cameras up!). I set up my tripod, frame it how I want, and shoot.

Let us know what you end up doing. As I said, GSF gave you a good link to help you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
GardenStateFool,

On that feature search, you can also go ahead and filter for "Remote Control", which gives you a total of five cameras.

Awesome! However...

Of those, I'd say the Canon Powershot G11 or G12, or the Nikon Coolpix P7100 might work for you.

Those appear to all be far too large to fit in a pocket. Their review of the Nikon Coolpix P7100, for example, says "Certainly not small enough to fit in a shirt or trouser pocket, the P7100 isn't much smaller than some interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras."

If you set the feature search to only "ultra compact", that eliminates all cameras except the Casio TRYX... a camera I'd looked at previously and discarded as useless (for reasons I forget now, but a quick glance at the specs shows 21mm no zoom).

What do you think you can do with a remote that you can't do with a timer?

I find that the more people there are in your shot, the less likely the shot is possible with a timer. It takes time to get a bunch of people together, so you need a long timer setting. But people get bored waiting for the camera, so they won't hold still for a long timer setting. Also, if the shot is anything besides "stand there and look stupid", you have to be able to pick the moment of the shot based on what the people (or other things in motion) are doing. A timer just doesn't cut it.

Also, you may want to look for a Gorillapod. Little, flexible tripod that you can wrap around a street sign or something else.

I think I have a different brand, but I got one some time ago. Very useful, on those rare occasions where I actually carry it.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"A timer just doesn't cut it."

Plus self timers (on cameras lacking manual focus) focus the moment the shutter button is pushed, and if the subject moves during the shutter delay, it will be out of focus.

~aj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What do you think you can do with a remote that you can't do with a timer? Just wondering.

My niece has a camera with a remote control, which is terrific for family reunions when you want to have a group shot with her in it. Instead of setting the timer and running madly and hoping she screeches into place just before the shutter clicks, she joins the group, tells everyone to "say Cheese", and discreetly pushes the button.

Now since there are 4-20 people in the shot, including babies, inevitably someone didn't smile, or the baby was picking its nose, or whatever, and she can crank of a half dozen shots in 30 seconds, making banter all the while to keep the crowd amused. Then the photo that gets shared is the best of six, instead of the best of one.

That's very different from having to run back and forth to the camera, set the timer, make sure you didn't move the camera while doing so, running back to be in the group, etc. etc.

For some people that wouldn't be worth it, but with extended and social family on both sides it is for her.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Speaking only for me, I never use the LCD screen except to check the shot when I'm done. Eye-to-viewfinder is how I shoot over 99% of my shots. If there is a crowd or obstruction I may hold the camera up, with with a DSLR (and a good lens) it's pretty awkward to do so. Much easier with a P&S.

----------------------------

Which I use depends on what I'm doing. I prefer using the viewfinder, but as soon as the camera goes onto a tripod, monopod or macro rail, I switch to the screen. Macrophotography is especially difficult using the viewfinder. I spent years emulating a contortionist while trying to focus with the macro rail.

I've used the screen to look over a crowd a few times. A tilting a swiveling screen is a big help.

Grue
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Am I missing something, or is there no tilt-screen camera that's actually decent (in the general class of "point and shoot" and "fits in your pocket" not that the Coolpix 950 would). Still pictures, not video.

Back when you bought the Coolpix 950 "and I bought the Coolpix 800 :)" you did not have tons of reviews online telling you what they think and thousands of messages about people trashing a camera because a brick wall looked horrible in Photoshop at 300% zoom.

In any event here is camera that will probably fit the bill unless you read so many reviews that finally someone finds a problem with it. It is on Amazon for $180 and has 47 reviews with about a 4.3 star rating out of 5.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Multiview-16-1MP-Digital-Optic...

They also have a newer model the MV900, although the photos on Amazon does not show the flip screen, look here:

http://sammyhub.com/2012/09/06/samsung-announces-mv900f-digi...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Forgot to address the remote shutter release.

The new mv900 has wifi and can talk to your smartphone that can take a photo remotely!

http://guidepdf.rurouniserver.com/samsung/samsung-mv900-manu...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
canonian,

Back when you bought the Coolpix 950 "and I bought the Coolpix 800 :)" you did not have tons of reviews online telling you what they think and thousands of messages about people trashing a camera because a brick wall looked horrible in Photoshop at 300% zoom.

The 800 was before the rotating screen, wasn't it?

In any event here is camera that will probably fit the bill unless you read so many reviews that finally someone finds a problem with it.

I'm well aware that there's always someone saying something bad if you read enough reviews. When I meant the tilt-screen cameras always seems to be unusable, I meant things like the Casio TRYX having no zoom whatsoever.

They also have a newer model the MV900

Thanks for the tips! I'll check those models out.

The new mv900 has wifi and can talk to your smartphone that can take a photo remotely!

Aaaaarrrrrgggg! I'm not really into smartphones, and my phone doesn't have WiFi. But clearly this means that remote shutter releases have probably gone the way of film cameras (to piggyback on recent posts here). All the new cameras will have WiFi-release instead.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Aaaaarrrrrgggg! I'm not really into smartphones, and my phone doesn't have WiFi. But clearly this means that remote shutter releases have probably gone the way of film cameras (to piggyback on recent posts here). All the new cameras will have WiFi-release instead.

Someone in the group you are taking the photo of will have a smartphone and be able to trigger your camera! :)

Funny how you want all of this wonderful technology from a Digital camera yet you don't have a smart phone?

You can always go back to a file camera with not screen and a cable release. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
canonian,

Funny how you want all of this wonderful technology from a Digital camera yet you don't have a smart phone?

I can buy a digital camera for $X and own it indefinitely. That Coolpix camera still works, last I tried it. For a smart phone, I'd have to pay $Y per month, every month, on and on and on. (Note that at the moment I'm using a prepaid cell phone which over the last few years has cost me as little as $2.62 per month and at most $6.78 one month.)

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I can buy a digital camera for $X and own it indefinitely. That Coolpix camera still works, last I tried it. For a smart phone, I'd have to pay $Y per month, every month, on and on and on. (Note that at the moment I'm using a prepaid cell phone which over the last few years has cost me as little as $2.62 per month and at most $6.78 one month.)


I gave my coolpix to a coworker and it is still going strong, all 2.1 megapixels!

You can get a used smart phone, turn on the wifi and install the app over wifi and use it without service. Just a thought.

With the camera you need a computer, a place to archive photos and an ever growing storage capacity all that cost money too! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"With the camera you need a computer, a place to archive photos and an ever growing storage capacity "

Where do you store your phone pictures?

~aj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They often will automatically upload. My Android was uploading photos to Picasa automatically until I found the setting and shut it off. I wasn't even aware of it until I went into Picasa one day for something else and saw pictures of price tags and such (I shoot those often to send to 1poorlady for her comment before buying something).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
canonian,

You can get a used smart phone, turn on the wifi and install the app over wifi and use it without service. Just a thought.

I didn't know that. Thanks for that tip too!

Phil
Print the post Back To Top