What's the Best Digital Camera for Around $100?

Question: I need a new digital camera. But since money is tight these days, I can't spend much over $100. Is there a camera around that price that's worth any money at all?
Our Advice: Yes. These days, most camera makers sell surprisingly capable point-and-shoots for just over $100. At that price, you won't get the latest and greatest photo technology. But you will get an inexpensive camera that takes good pictures and offers a useful array of automatic features. Our current favorite is Fujifilm's 10-megapixel Finepix J20, which you can pick up for about $120.
The J20 has a more compact, sturdy, and stylish design than many of its budget-priced competitors. And its 2.7-inch LCD provides a clear view in a wide range of lighting situations, from bright sunlight to dim interiors. It also produces impressively sharp and colorful images at ISO (light sensitivity) settings as high as 1600. That allows you to shoot without the flash in low light and still capture photos with minimal graininess. All those qualities lend the J20 versatility and easy portability, making it a good all-purpose snapshot camera.
In addition to the basics that you'd expect from any digital camera, the J20 gives you a few features that you wouldn't have found in a budget camera just a year or two ago. For example, its face-detection effectively focuses on friends. And it can automatically analyze scenes to set the camera for the appropriate shooting mode, such as Portrait, Landscape, Night, Macro, Night Portrait, or Backlit Portrait.
We also like the fact that Fujifilm didn't keep the J20's price low by skimping on the lens, LCD, or video resolution, or by leaving out a rapid-fire shooting mode -- all typical drawbacks of inexpensive cameras. Its retractable 3X zoom lens gives you a usable focal-length range from 35.5mm wide to 106.5mm telephoto. And it shoots 30-frames-per-second video at VGA (640-by-480-pixel) resolution -- equivalent to standard-definition TV.






The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
Boss Indifferent To My Suicidal Impulse, Says Stock Trader Who Lost Millions
Katy Perry Divorce: With No Prenup How Much Will Russell Walk Away With?
Savings Experiment: Tissues vs. Toilet Paper
Hiroshi Ishiguro's android mannequin creeps out Japanese shoppers (video)
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
Blueseed: 'Startup Incubator' Could Sail Past Immigration Law
Randy Travis Apologizes for Public Intoxication
Dozens Of D.C. Workers May Lose Jobs Over Alleged Unemployment Fraud
Wrecks to Riches: Hunting Sunken Treasures from Cape Cod to the Costa Concordia















Comments
19
Subscribe to commentsJaydn ReinDec 16th 2009 12:34PM
Really, the J20fd for $120? Usually see this camera closer to $99. I haven't been too impressed with the smaller fuji cameras, they come out quite a bit dark for my tastes, especially indoors. I've also seen a higher than average return rate for those cameras - usually a lens error issue. That being said, the J20 is nowhere as horrible as the Nikon s220/s230 models ... but you can do better. There are so many better choices out there while still remaining in that price range! Not to mention that major retailers are often willing to price match - especially if you're nice and are willing to pick up a memory card too. (Expect around $13 for an sd card). All of the following cameras take great pictures, and perform well in low light. (They all have a larger maximum lens opening than the fuji does, so they can get more light in = less blur, better low light pics.)
I'd take a look at the Canon A1100. Typically priced in the $120 range but you can easily find it on sale. (Downside for some: relies on AA batteries - but with 12 mp, a 4x optical zoom, video capability and auto scene recognition you do get more for your money.)
Even some of the newer Olympus cameras are doing pretty well, like the stylus 4010, normally $129, on sale for $109 at bestbuy. 12 megapixels, 4x optical zoom, overall good pictures, metal/fairly durable camera body - but it does use an xd or microsd card (use a micro sd card with the included orange colored adapter and you'll spend around $13).
To be fair, if there's one camera I tend to recommend above most others it would be the Canon sd1200. Yes, pricier at usually $149 but it is one of the best cameras I've seen out this year, and not too hard to find on sale. (12 mp, 3x zoom, great picture quality, movie mode, auto scene mode, and a great programmable mode too.)
(Note: I've been a photographer for the past ten years and I've been selling cameras for the last two.)
Ed AlarconDec 16th 2009 3:10PM
Thanks for those comments as I am in the market for a camera.
bob engelDec 27th 2009 6:07AM
what is your opinion on the Sony Cybershot H20/B Digital Camera 10.1 Megapixels/10X Optical Zoom
carriemccm79Dec 27th 2009 6:18AM
I bought my wife the Nikon 10mp Coolpix camera for Christmas. It is awesome and I think it is by far the best value going. I bought it from Amazon and saved $30 instantly. Original price of $119.95 - $30 instant savings = price of $89.95. This is really a steal...easy to use and the quality is unreal. This deal is going on until Jan 2nd. I definitely recommend you check this out... Http://cli.gs/nikoncoolpix10mp
ckelsonsrDec 16th 2009 4:30PM
i just bought a kodak easy share z1485is and it has all the features of the more expensive digital cameras with 14 mega pixels and a 5x optical and 5x digital zoom, takes great pics with ease and can be bought for around $99 online
tommy stephensDec 16th 2009 8:27PM
Is canon Model #sd1200 12mp or 10mp?
Jaydn ReinDec 16th 2009 10:31PM
Oops! I was thinking of another canon model when I wrote that. 10mp.
markDec 16th 2009 8:23PM
i bought a nikon coolpix model L20. i also bought one for my daughter. its a really good camera and takes great pics. its $99.
pnut166Dec 17th 2009 1:46AM
This sounds suspiciously like an advertisement. Canon A480 = $99, much better camera
RwardDec 16th 2009 9:21PM
Got this camera six months ago. Great camera,takes great pictures,even in low light and thats hard for a camera in this price range .Movies are good quality. lots of features.Well pieased.
VicDec 16th 2009 9:46PM
Even the cheapest film camera still has more resolution then even highest digital camera. Film is roughly equal to around 2 million pixels, in other words 2 Gig. I have yet to see a Digital Camera is even close to a Gig. Don't be fooled, FILM IS HIGH DEFINITION. It is a shame we have not moved forward in photography technology, we have actually stepped backward. Nothing more pathetic than gathering around the Christmas and taking a family picture with your 3 Mega Pixel Cell Phone camera. In 20 years when your children or grand children want to look at photographs from your past, good luck try finding a cd rom drive to view your pictures, and oh yeah, if you did happen to print your digital pictures, there won't be much to look at but faded pictures. Film has been proven to last more than a hundred years and you can also print infinite amounts of copies, if you have the negative that will look just as good even in a hundred years! Don't be sucker, for cherished memories, use film!
Jaydn ReinDec 16th 2009 10:29PM
*sigh* I miss film. I still use my film slr more often than any of my other cameras! In some ways I guess the creation of cheaper digital cameras did to photography what the early Kodak cameras did - allowed easy/less expensive access to more people, for more spontaneous snapshots. And on the longevity issue, negatives do become brittle, and prints will fade over time (depending on light, temp, and humidity levels). For family memories, I'd say the best thing is to occasionally copy to a new format every few years or so while keeping the originals properly preserved. And to be fair - digital cameras do add in movie clip capabilities - usually mediocre resolution and short video time, but still nice to have for an unexpected moment.
snowweaselDec 27th 2009 1:17AM
I don't think film is dead, but it's rapidly headed that direction. Film has a lot going for it, but digital, in my opinion, has a lot more, particularly if you can invest a bit more in a higher end point and shoot or pretty much any recent digital SLR. The imediate feedback of a digital camera helps photographers who are wanting to improve be able to improve at a much quicker pace. You can immediately see what adjusting differnet settings accomplishes. Even if you post process a lot, it still is much quicker than printing film. Digital does lack a bit in contrast and tonal range, but it's rapidly improving. If you're a film person, and have your process down, by all means, keep shooting film as long as you want (or as long as it's available), but if you're new to photography, I can't think of any real reason to recommend film. Get a decent digital camera and listen to a podcast like "Tips from the Top Floor" to learn how to take better pictures.
JeffreyDec 16th 2009 10:26PM
I like Nikon better myself...I have one too,and I love it
BluesDogDec 16th 2009 11:44PM
"Even the cheapest film camera still has more resolution then even highest digital camera."...@@@ Sorry that simply isn't true. While some FILMS may have higher resolution Capability, many CAMERAS made for film, especially cheap ones, are not capable of the same resolution- the lens usually being the reason. AND, some films just aren't all that sharp. I have worked in photography since 1969 and was a full-time Pro for 23 years. Digital has many shortcomings, especially in a single-image photo, but resolution is not really one of them anymore. The FACT is that large format high resolution photography is Dead. NO Agency or publication I know of is asking for it. Kodachrome is Dead- so, High Resolution Archival slide film is Dead. No One Hires Darkroom Technicians anymore, Kodak closed all of their labs and support facilities. The last time I looked at a box of German Baryta Silver based paper, the price was so high I almost fell down. Sadly, High Quality Film and Chemical based photography is back where it began- in the hands of a few wealthy dilettantes. Better stay current, and keep updating to the newest format, buy a dye transfer digital archival printer and make the best of the situation. I sold my big glass, I'm done. Digital all the way. There are some new techniques coming in now where multiple images can be combined to cover a vast tonal scale, beyond what even film was capable of...even with burning and dodging and contrast filters and poly graded paper, and all the nonsense we used to have to go through. So, check it out, get off the pity pot, and join the real world, the place where all the professionals have already gone.
EHKDec 26th 2009 10:33PM
I miss Kadachrome! Slides I took in Sri Lanka in the late 70s still have the most striking color as do negatives I took with Fujifilm in the 1980s. Wish I could find someone to do decent film developing. Every local chain store has printed garbage for me in the last year if it was from film. I think you are right and I need to buy my own archival printer. Only those with their own dark room can now process film. SIGH!
steveDec 26th 2009 8:52PM
Count me as a Panasonic fan. Their system is more user friendly for me. I have the $169.00 12 megapixels and five or six zoom. Takes great pictures as far as I'm concerned.
celibeth563467Dec 27th 2009 1:55AM
Jaydn Rein could you give any advice, im looking for a camera thats very good for macro shots i had a samsung nv12 i think it was and it was great but it fell into water do you have any insight on one thats under 300
austinalhncFeb 7th 2010 7:57PM
I just bought a new Nikon Coolpix for $150.00 is this a good buy?