I am looking for a cheap digital camera that allows you to change its focus. Usually, on digital cameras, the focus is by default forced to be set to "infinity"; I would like to mess with it to make better pictures of natures and wilderness.

You want a canon, you want one with manual focus, and depending on your budget you probably want something from the Powershot line. Remember, megapixels beyond around 7 are irrelevant; you want lens quality, focus quality, rather than big megapixels. Digital zoom is also irrelevant, you want nice optical zoom. Have a look at camera review sites to see what fits your price range and needs.

I heard buying a luxury like a camera is immoral because you could instead use that money to provide a necessity for someone in need.

Why is anything beyond 7MP irrelevant?
Also, what is "ISO" ?

http://www.howtogeek.com/107163/htg-explains-everything-you-know-about-resolution-is-probably-wrong/

This article is pretty in-depth, but a good read imo.
tl;dr other parts of the camera also reduce image quality so going even higher in resolution doesn't improve the image because the datails will get swallowed up.

http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_iso.html

Basically ISO is camera sensitivity to light; higher ISO means you can take pictures in low light better but also increase the shutter time, making it not so effective at taking action shots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#ISO

ISO stands for International Standards Organization. In film ISO 12232:2006 and a number of others (6, 5800, 2240) all describe standards for film. It's got conversions and all that jazz too.

In film, the ISO rating is the speed of the film. In other things, it's something completely different. The ISO for time and date is 20120316 instead of 03/16/2012 or the completely backwards way that europe does it: 16/03/2012.

Well, in the end, I'll just dump the focus perk: cameras become too bulky and expensive with that feature.
Thanks for your help everyone.

You want to learn how to camera before you buy something expensive anyways. You can still take pretty good pictures with point and shoot cameras.

Here's what I bought: http://en.nikon.ca/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/32138/COOLPIX%C2%A0L25.html

It is -super- hard to get a non-blurry picture because whenever you move like just one goddamn nanometer, it's screwed up.
How the hell do I fix that? It looks like I should be able to fix it by reducing the time of exposure, but it doesn't look like it's possible.
And I really mean it when I say it's extremely hard because I'm really standing still and it still screws up.

If the settings allow it, change to higher shutter speed, and lower ISO. (I think lower ISO is correct <.<) If it doesn't have many manual settings then you chose the wrong camera ;0 you could also try resting it against something solid like a tree or a tripod :3

Two things.
1. I can't believe that even when NIKON wasn't even mentioned in the whole thread (to be honest nobody actually answered your question) you bought a nikon and
2. Nikon really shouldn't be allowed to sell these cameras. Really. They should just give them away free with the purchase of a sandwich or something. The whole NIKON COOLPIX series is just. garbage.


To take "faster" pictures you want to lower up the aperture in your shutter. But since you bought...that you probably don't have this option. This is usually done by raising your F-number or (closing aperture). Then again, your camera is probably a fixed aperture range which you will not be able to control. I'm too lazy and these cameras aren't even worth researching their technical specs.

If you do have control on your aperture than yes, raising your F-number (decreasing aperture) will make it take pictures faster but it wil ALSO MAKE LESS LIGHT PASS THROUGH YOUR LENS WHICH MEANS FOR DARKER PHOTOS. In your digital camera try using the "flower mode" or close up mode, dunno, point and shoots are weird.

Another way is to decrease your shutter speed. Which you most likely don't have access to either. Usually frames are taken in...lapses of time. You can have a short exposure frame which is a shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/4000 (of a second) and loooong exposures from 1/10 to 30s (haven't seen more exposure than that in any camera) of course there's BULB which is not an option if you're considering to not use a tripod.
TL;DR the longer you put in your exposure time, the shutter will remain open to "catch more light". Lowering exposure time = shutter open less time = faster still. I needn't say that by lowering the time it takes to take a picture the less light that your lens will catch and the darker your photo.

Then there's ISO. There's a basic rule I call the zany rule. Basically, unless it is a ripped off tutorial, don't believe anything jack says. ever. ISO is the international standards thing which used to regulate Film quality and stuff (I'm dumbing down all of this since I just realised it's a huge ass wall of text) so basically ISO was the sensitivity of a film to light. Films with lower iso are less sensible to light = darker photos. higher ISO films were more sensible, thus, making them perfect for night shots.

DIGITAL CAMERAS EMULATE ISO, THEY AREN'T REALLY SENSIBLE TO LIGHT SINCE THEY HAVE NO FILM TO BE SENSIBLE TO LIGHT TO. They actually just "catch light" with their sensor, which is why they compensate (at least in the crappy manual mode your camera is probably by default stuck in) with shutter speed and aperture size. In your case a higher iso will mean a faster picture. But it will also be noisy as hell.

Had you actually asked... well, a simple google search would have done better than, well, SEN. I'd have recommended a canon powershot. Specifically this: http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Canon-PowerShot-A720-IS-80-MP-Digital-Camera-Silver-/100145560?_refkw=A720is&_pcatid=782&_odkw=sd4000&_pcategid=625&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_dmpt=Digital_Cameras it's still a really crappy camera, but at least has manual control of the things. (usually point and shoots are only good at the range from 150 to 230 US dollars.

Things to consider:
Point and shoots CAN make great pictures. It's not the camera, it's how you use it.
Chances are that with ANY camera, unless you spend more than 2.6k on one, you're always going to have to stop and get down your bike, sorry.
The zany rule.
Lens quality doesn't really matter in point and shoots. They're all crap. Unless you're going for a SLR or DSLR you shouldn't really worry about lense quality.
My sister's marvelous coolpix had your trouble. We even mounted it in a tripod set it to timer mode and SHIT WAS STILL BLURY. PERIOD.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 23 2012, 6:35 am by helpfulcorbo.

Broooo I was correct about ISO D: don't hate.
And Nikon's higher end cameras are ok but for his price range he should have got a canon with some manual features.

Darn, shoulda told me that earlier.
I'm a total noob when it comes to cameras. I wanted to have manual settings, but it looked like the cheapest camera with these features were either over 300$ (way out of my budget), or were too bulky for me to even think about have one while backpacking without getting pissed off at the end of the trip.
Also, what is "point and shoot"?

I had tried to check for used cameras first, but couldn't find anything that suited what I needed. Then, I went to a professional camera store, and the cheapest camera was that NIKON for 100$. At least, when I'm able to take non-blurry pictures, they are super good quality, and the videos that it takes are really awesome quality and not a hassle like taking pictures.

You're basically saying I should be looking for a Canon Powershot Axxxx IS? When you compare them to the Nikon L25, when does the Nikon have something better to offer?

Here are the two cameras I've found on Kijiji:

http://montreal.kijiji.ca/c-acheter-et-vendre-appareils-photo-cameras-CANON-POWERSHOT-A-700-en-PARFAIT-ETAT-W0QQAdIdZ362300590
http://montreal.kijiji.ca/c-acheter-et-vendre-appareils-photo-cameras-Canon-powershot-A580-8-megapixels-W0QQAdIdZ364121857

They are probably better than the one I currently have? Which one do I want the most?
Does it matter a lot that there doesn't seem to be Image Stabilizers?

I'd need a quick answer since I plan on leaving tomorrow morning (I thus need to make the deal tonight ).

I literally said "you want a canon", I didn't think I'd even have to mention other brands because of this. ANYWAY.

If you want a camera with manual settings, which you do, then there's a good chance it's not going to be a tiny thin little thing. It won't be massively bulky either but it won't be cellphone sized, more like 3 cellphones sized (if that makes sense).

Point and shoot cameras are cameras designed to be able to pick up, point at something, and take a shot. The automatic features take care of everything for you but they don't do as good a job as if you had manually set them yourself.

OK compared to that Nikon, let's take the PowerShot A570IS as a random example:
"The PowerShot A570IS offers a surprising range of manual control for such a simple camera. The user can manually set aperture and shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus."
As well as having numerous other advantages over the Nikon. Now, it's more expensive so you'd probably have to buy that second hand, not brand new; that's just an example.

EDIT
A700 is a better choice, at first glance at least.

Could you look more deeply into both the cameras I've suggested please? They are both offered at the same price as second-hand items (75$, which is cheaper than this retarded Coolpix), so I'd like to pick the best if possible.
And again, is there a big difference between IS and non-IS? It looks like both cameras I've found do not offer IS.

EDIT: And yep, I just went back to read and you did mention "Canon Powershot". I guess as a complete noob, I didn't realize you were giving me the brands.

Corbo says:"
I seriously doubt they're super good quality

Thing is, really, if it has coolpix in the name, DON'T that's basically my standard. I don't actually recommend NIKON. Not because they don't make good cameras, they do. It's just that they're full of BS things like this and basically, legally scam people with their crappy products, really what you buy from them is the brand name and probably some 13 year olds will like you more too.

Yeah, I'm basically saying you should've gone for a powershot. It's what most people would've recommended to you. Even the ones without manual control are better. You know there's also some SONY point and shoots that are okay.
point and shoot refers to, literally, you POINT the camera AND SHOOT. Easy as that.

Nikon has something better to offer when they use Leica lenses in their point and shoots.
Your lens is NIKKOR. Which is just a nikon lens. Nothing bad with nikon lenses but yours is definately low end, for your price.
If you have any more questions I can help you you can go on corboland and contact me or something since... you know "

In itself, I do not consider I need these manual settings since I don't know how to mess with them.
All I want right now is a camera that do not require me to become a statue for 2 seconds.
I went outside with my coolpix and it looks like the natural light (even though fairly late and cloudy) greatly helped: I don't really need to stand still as much.

Cute. Because even manual cameras require you to be still at times.

For point and shoot if you want a 'cheat' to make shutter speed faster set it to action/sport or something like that.

Anyways, take a guess at which picture I shot with a 5MP Kodak Easy Share and which picture I should with a 10.2 MP Sony a230.