Ask Engadget: What's the best digital camera for a child?

Kids these days. Gifted with cellphones before they're able to walk, texting before they can write and wrecking mum's DSLR before they can even earn an allowance. In order to nix that last issue, many parents are looking to snag a point-and-shoot that wouldn't be too overwhelming for the average kiddo, yet could stand the abuse and churn out somewhat respectable images. According to Sean:

"I have tried a couple of child-specific digital cameras on the market and have been unhappy with them. They are poorly made and take really crummy pictures. Does anyone have a recommendation for something that takes decent pictures (over 3-megapixels, please) and that you'd be comfortable turning over to a 10 year old?"

We'll go ahead and assume Mr. Sean wants to keep the price point low, and while finding a kiddie camera with decent quality may be tough, feel free to include suggestions in comments for digicams you've had that have survived unspeakable catastrophes. Want to get your inquiry up in here next week? Shoot us a line at ask at engadget dawt com and we'll see what we can do.

[Orlando @ Apr 24th 2008 7:29PM]

Apple i-Camera.

[Adam @ Apr 24th 2008 7:23PM]

I think a slightly older generation Canon Elph is decent. All you need is 5 megapixels really for what kids are doing with putting pics online. It is small and fits in a backpack or a pocket to take everywhere. You can find one for under $150.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 24th 2008 7:30PM]

Nah... The kiddo's a 10 year old.

What I can say is the Kid-Tough Camera.

http://www.fisher-price.com/fp.aspx?st=10&e=pelanding

They would not need 5+ Megapixels, lolz.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 24th 2008 7:34PM]

If that does not work, try handing down your old camera.

[romanholiday @ Apr 24th 2008 7:43PM]

Kid-Tough Camera? I got that on-sale after Christmas for my kids and the picture quality is horrible--about on par with a camera phone. It's only 1.3MP as well, and the OP specified 3MP+.

For a 3-year old it's fine, but a 10-year old should be able to take better care of a camera, and deserves better. Maybe get one used/refurbed? Or get a brand new Kodak (saw a couple that were < $100).

[Chuckles McGee @ Apr 24th 2008 8:03PM]

Something cheap. Chances are the kid's going to abuse this thing, not need more than basic snapshots, not have the skills to use many of the advanced features and by the time they are ready for extra features, cameras will be much more feature-packed at a lower price.

[mac @ Apr 24th 2008 8:04PM]

It's not even 1.3 megapixels.As it notes on the linked website, it takes pictures at 640x480, or about a whopping .3 megapixels. It'll output pictures at higher resolutions, but it just interpolates them.

As far as the really cheap (

[mac @ Apr 24th 2008 8:05PM]

Sorry, posting twice as the comment system seemed to parse the less than symbol and get confused, so it just stopped at that spot.

It's not even 1.3 megapixels.As it notes on the linked website, it takes pictures at 640x480, or about a whopping .3 megapixels. It'll output pictures at higher resolutions, but it just interpolates them.

As far as the really cheap ( below $100) digital cameras go, your options are pretty much:
The cheap Kodak: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2070070012+4026&name=%2450+-+%2475
or the cheap Olympus: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830111068

The Kodak cameras always seems to have problems with dark and grainy pictures if you use the flash indoors, but outdoor pictures seem fine (as long as ISO doesn't randomly get set high). If you go to stores, Polaroid and Samsung cameras have generally bad reliability and are quite prone to taking bad pictures (at least from the returns I get working at a retail chain...).

My favorite of the cheap ones is probably the Olympus, which takes half-decent pictures for the price.

[sinai @ Apr 24th 2008 7:24PM]

the disposable kind rigged to shock the user.

that'll teach the whipper snappers to touch my gadgets!

[Lein @ Apr 24th 2008 7:24PM]

iPhone

It's the best for everything else, after all.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 24th 2008 7:32PM]

You are giving an iPhone to a 10 year old!? LOLZ.

[Zak @ Apr 24th 2008 7:54PM]

It's never the Apple fanboys that start it, is it?

[Xboxman @ Apr 24th 2008 8:05PM]

Start what?? the guy isnt saying the iphone sucks or anything, hes just saying its stupid to give a kid an expensive piece of equipment.

Stupid apple fanboy.

[Lein @ Apr 24th 2008 8:13PM]

Notice the article above that mentions "Gifted with cellphones before they're able to walk..."

I stand by my personal recommendation, and for the life of me, I don't understand why more of you don't agree.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 24th 2008 8:30PM]

Nah, I understand that, Lein. Perfect logic with the article. :)

[spass @ Apr 24th 2008 7:24PM]

Why would a kid need a kid specific camera?

Kids today are way smarter that we think.

[Hero @ Apr 25th 2008 1:09AM]

Uhhh huh. My mom barely knows how to insert an SDHC card into her new camera...
LOLOLOL!

[xValentine @ Apr 25th 2008 6:22AM]

we're talking about kids. not your mom.

[jason @ Apr 24th 2008 7:28PM]

the olympus stylus 850 is shock proof (5 feet onto concrete) and waterproof (10 feet under water) so it would make a good camera for you and your child and has decent features too... check it out..

http://www.thesource.ca/estore/Product.aspx?language=en-CA&catalog=Online&category=8-9.9MP&product=2516951

[cmonkey @ Apr 24th 2008 7:36PM]

Indeed. Any of Olympus's SW models (770, 790, 850, 1030) could take a lot of abuse. The image quality won't be the greatest, but it would certainly be better than the garbage that is traditionally marketed towards children.

That said, when I was around that age, my parents bought me my first digital camera, and it wasn't child specific. If the kid is a budding geek, he or she is going to be able to handle operating and taking care of a normal point and shoot, like a Canon SD* or similar camera.

[eslmatt @ Apr 24th 2008 9:05PM]

SW series is the only way to go. It is the only camera to survive me. It has survived the washing machine, countless drops and being buried in snow.

[dragevenn @ Apr 25th 2008 4:46AM]

I have to agree with jason here. I bought an Olympus mju 790 for my 5 year old daughter (Christmas gift). And it has been a huge success on all fronts. Although her technique isn't quite there yet, the camera withstands all "accidents" and misuse a 5-year old can muster up (so far).
It is also a good camera, which takes decent pictures.
Since it can handle a 5-year old, a 10-year old should be a breeze in the park for this camera :-)

[gurzanagi @ Apr 25th 2008 1:21PM]

the real question here is, will it blend?

[James @ Apr 24th 2008 7:34PM]

That's easy. Whatever camera that my current camera replaced.

[Bassplayer @ Apr 24th 2008 7:32PM]

Got my daughter whatever Kodak was at the $100 price point last year. Very easy to use, and probably her favorite gift ever. I own a Canon that I got for about the same last year,and I think it's also easy to use.

[coolbho3000 @ Apr 24th 2008 7:31PM]

Nikon D3

[spass @ Apr 24th 2008 8:00PM]

Indeed, if we all out our brains together, we might be able to read the manual.

[James Dumoulin @ Apr 24th 2008 10:57PM]

can I pretend to be the kid so you can buy me one? it only costs OVER NINE THOUSAND PENNIES!!!!!

[thethirdmoose @ Apr 24th 2008 11:39PM]

$90?

[James Dumoulin @ Apr 25th 2008 8:29AM]

569888 pennies to be exact, that's technically OVER nine thousand pennies

[Robert Abramson @ Apr 24th 2008 7:34PM]

Canon powershot a series-- they're not too expensive, they take great pictures, and in every case I've seen they're damn tough. I own an a630 and I take it everywhere my Nikon DSLR can't go.

[Bob @ Apr 24th 2008 8:47PM]

I owned 3 powershots they are good cameras but are built like garbage. My first one I had I dropped it and the LCD broke but still took pictures. My second camera I got my son dropped on the kitchen floor and the zoom broke. My last camera, the one I got before I bought my Nikon D300, I dropped on the side walk in Vegas and it took pictures but all buttons in the back broke. SO even for an adult with no coordination there not good physically.

[mark @ Apr 25th 2008 1:03AM]

so, yeah, just tell the kid to not drop it.

[Matt @ Apr 24th 2008 7:34PM]

There was a recent article on PhotoDoto.com about the very subject.

[Charlie Taylor @ Apr 24th 2008 7:39PM]

I used to sell cameras. I am also a professional photographer.

Never ever ever ever give a child a digital camera unless you trust them to be VERY responsible with it. I have seen far too many cameras ruined by irresponsible children. Of course the parents always blame the robustness of the camera, and then go ahead and buy their child another one.

IF you are dead set on buying a child a digital camera, get them a Canon A series camera. They take decent photos, are pretty fast shot-to-shot, run on AA's, and are fairly robust considering their price, which is below $150 usually. Also as a precaution DO NOT LET THEM take their camera to locations where it is likely to be stolen by jealous peers. School, birthday parties with lots of other kids and day camps are PRIME targets for little klepto's not to mention a great place for the camera to get lost.

If your child is expressing interest in learning photography however, get them an old film SLR. These things are built like tanks, very easy to use and will teach your children how to use a proper camera. Once they have mastered that then get them a digital camera. Point and shoot digital cameras are a terrible tool for teaching people how to take photos, as it does everything for them. The younger you expose someone to such automation the more ingrained the belief that the camera should always do your work for you becomes.

[Jesse S @ Apr 24th 2008 7:51PM]

I love you.

[Ethan @ Apr 24th 2008 8:10PM]

I have to agree with this. They're quite chunky but not too big. I think they'd survive a drop or seven.

[Tim @ Apr 24th 2008 8:16PM]

Amen - even a film point and shoot to start; so the kid gets an idea of the value of a photo through saving film, rather than the general myspace 500 images of the same thing.

[randompass @ Apr 24th 2008 8:39PM]

you don't think that having to adjust for correct light exposure manually might be too much for the kid to handle? I mean, I love the idea of introducing the kid to film but
Unless you meant an old automatic rather than an good old manual SLR
I do agree that they're built like tanks though.
will the SLR be a deterrent to the kid taking more pictures and exploring is what I'm trying to get at

[Dan @ Apr 24th 2008 9:05PM]

I disagree with recommending a film camera. It doesn't allow the immediate feedback and experimentation that a digital camera does. This allows a kid to see the effects of changing aperture and shutter speed.

Also, with a digital camera you have to pay for film and developing. I don't want to pay for that and it's waaaaay to slow for a kid.

[Ethan @ Apr 24th 2008 9:52PM]

As a 'kid who learnt on digital' I think I'm alright. My introduction to film was a floppy-disk camera, then a mobile(!), borrowing someone else's camera and then I bought one. I had an APS point and shoot once though. Artificial limitations aren't what's going to make your kid discerning.

Well, y'know, judge for yourself I guess: http://23hq.com/Ethan

[Don @ Apr 24th 2008 10:07PM]

Film?
hate to burst ur bubble, but maybe where u live u can buy craploads of film cheaply... but this is 2008 "fast approaching The Jetsons. get him or her the 300D rebel or something equiv

[flyby @ Apr 24th 2008 10:42PM]

I think this is a very good thought but it is a bit difficult to figure out an SLR by trial-and-error if you have to wait at least a few hours (or days) to see the results.

Wouldn't it just be better to get kids disposable cameras?!
1)They are cheap and if it breaks or gets lost you don't lose a lot of money
2)Walgreens and most other film developers will give you a CD of the photos so the kid can send them via e-mail of post on facebook/myspace

[Nancy A @ Apr 25th 2008 1:03AM]

Agreed on the Canon A series cameras. I got one for my 11-year old for her birthday last year, and it's been great. It was easy for her to figure out, runs on AA batteries, and isn't too big. We even used it to take photos for her school science project. She's pretty careful with it, but I think it's relatively durable.

[Si @ Apr 25th 2008 5:26AM]

Film SLR is a terrible idea. I'm all for manual exposure and white balance but how many people know kids under 16 or 18 for that matter with the patience to use something that technical? And wait to get it developed?

Teenagers now want small, compact cameras that they can point and shoot at a party or with their friends without having to ask people to pose again 'cos someone wasn't looking in the first one.

I think you have to be REALLY into photography to want to use film SLR. I've got an EOS 350D, but there's no way in hell I would take that out with me to a club or a party.

If your kid is old enough, let them save up for half the camera and you cover the other half, otherwise, buy them the camera and if they break it, no more camera. Easy as that. If they aren't old enough to respect it, why bother?
If we're talking even younger than that, is a second hand cheapo going to be that bad?

[joe LeMonnier @ Apr 24th 2008 9:59PM]

Gget whatever is on sale below $100. Then buy the unlimited guarantee. Make sure it covers everything: water, shock...
Together, it'll cost about 120. and as long as she doesn't lose it, you're fine. Most of the cameras on the market are about the same and any 10-year-old can handle them. Look for : large screen, record and playback sound and don't worry about megapixels.

[badweasel @ Apr 24th 2008 7:41PM]

spass.. you obviously don't have a kid. And it depends on how old the kid is. I want my kids to take photos so I'm starting them early. My 2.5 yr old loves electronics and can unlock and flip through pictures on my iphone. So getting her a phone was a good move.

I bought her the fisher price kids-tough camera at 2 years old. It's rugged and can be dropped and thrown around. She didn't figure out really how to use it until about 2 1/2.. so by three she'll be taking pictures like a pro. But there are a couple of major problems:

First is that it's sub-megapixel (640x480). Why skimp on the image sensor so much? Why can't they make a rugged camera that's at least in the 5 megapixel range. Just because she's a kid doesn't mean I don't want to save the good photos, print them, and send them to grandparents.

Second is that it's too easy to erase photos. She'll understand how to aim way earlier than understanding why she shouldn't hit the delete button over and over. There should be a parental lock out so only I can delete photos.

For an older child I'd just hand me down one of my older cameras.

[PeterF @ Apr 24th 2008 8:19PM]

You bought a 2.5 year old a PHONE? Who the heck does a 2.5 year old need to call?

[MyNameIsNotBob @ Apr 24th 2008 10:40PM]

I have two kids (currently 6 and 8 years old.) I bought two of those Fisher-Price "kid" cameras (one pink and one blue) at Costco, and both bricked within six months. I replaced both and the replacements also bricked within six months. I know it's not a good sample set, but based on the four that I owned, the MTBF is somewhere between 50 and 100 pictures. Maybe that's a good deal for you, or maybe a disposable film camera is a better deal. It's up to you.

[carmen @ Apr 24th 2008 10:45PM]

You bought a 2 and a half year old child a phone.
Well when your daughter grows up to be spoiled rotten don't blame it on being curious.
Plus no offense to the kid...but it's not that hard to move your finger from left to right and press a button that says PHOTOS...why do all parents think that when their kid takes a shit it's the most smartest, greatest thing in the world?