In the absence of any criteria/requirements, they will all be good enough, so just check the reviews on dpreview.com and get the one with the highest score.
The only camera that has any reviews on DPReview, a user review, is the Nikon, and it's shit. So that's out. The others have mixed reviews on Amazon/other sites.
Well, whatever he gets it'll be better than his old Sony which runs flat in 5 minutes and probably doesn't take the best of pictures. Or maybe I could recommend a DSLR, a Canon 70D maybe, and swap it for my 350D.
PLUS, PLUS, PLUS...think of his his investment in Memory Sticks™. They have only one use, and that's for sticking in a Sony. Preferably the CEO's arse. Sideways.
It's completely different setup to his old camera. His old one must be 8 or oy ears. I think either that or the Lumix and the Sony would be be better for the budget.
I was looking at the Ixus 255 when I bought my camera last year and it was a very good camera. The Ixus 155 isn't great but would probably be fine for what he would use.
I think part of the problem with these cheap cameras is all those pixels. It produces noise on the tiny CCD, even at low ISO, and makes it slow to process and save pictures to the card.
I think I might pop into Curry's and see if I can play with the Sony and Canon.
Picked up the Sony today. Can't really complain for £60. Had a play with it in the shop (NJ) but hard to tell the quality of it with fingerprints all over the lenses. The Nikon really was rubbish though, no detail to small parts in the pictures.
Had a play with when I got back home (YJ) with one of my memory cards (yes it can use SD cards as well as memory sticks) to compare it to my Canon S100. Big difference unsurprisingly but also a big difference in price. I'm sure he will be happy with it though.
bastard by name