Digital camara

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:09 pm

Ok, BBb or CC digital camara? All kidding aside, I want to get one, but I'm clueless. There are two basic uses I can think of for it: snapshots (I'm not a "photographer" and have no desire to become one) and close-ups, documentaries of my instruments and their condition, for both informational and insurance purposes.

Smaller is better, up to a point, for carrying on ski trips (in pocket) and on vacations.

So...what do I need? Despite the EE degree, I'm not that fond of bells and whistles, although I don't want totally automatic function, as evidenced by my frustration with my Mac computer, which is about the least user-friendly piece of equipment I've ever encountered. You do it IT'S WAY or the highway. So, some adjustability is desireable, without having to get every little setting exactly right to be able to take a picture.

MA

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:17 pm

One thing that I'd recommend is making sure that the camera has a decent hunk of glass (lens) on it. It's really strange to see 8 Mpixel cameras with garbage for optics.

There are a number of very good camera rating sites on the web, complete with test shots and critiques. I'd start by reviewing those and then figuring out what fits your needs the best.

I'd also recommend a camera that takes standard NiMH batteries, rather than some manufacturer's proprietary unit.

Ricko · Post by **Ricko** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:31 pm

We buy a whole mess of them for use here at the office... for a small point at shoot the Canon Powershot A510 or 520 series can't be beat. They've got good optics and great electronics. Don't get too hung up in the megapixel hype - a three megapixel camera will make 8x10s that are indistinguishable from a film print. If you get the shot of a lifetime and want to make a poster out of it you can find someone knowledgable enough in photoshop to enlarge the print for less than the price difference in the cameras.

If you need something small with more zoom the Powershot S1 is great. If you desire an SLR the EOS digital rebels are good also.

Lew · Post by **Lew** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:52 pm

I have a Canon PowerShot S70, which is a great camera, although I think that there are newer versions out now. It isn't as small as some others, but is still pocket sized and takes great photos. Here's a link to a review, and from here you can read reviews of similar cameras.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_PowerShot ... ml?tag=tab

dmmorris · Post by **dmmorris** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:51 pm

I bought a Nikon D2H. Yeah...I know there's a bunch of cameras for less money that have higher megapixel ratings, but.......it's full feature and most importantly.....it accepts all of my old Nikkor glass (manual focus mode) and Nikon flash accessories. I like it a lot....except it is big-n-heavy.

Matt G · Post by **Matt G** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:52 pm

I have a Canon Powershot something-or-other also. Does a good job with the ease of a traditional point and shoot camera and some features that can allow the user to play around as a serious hobbyist for a bit.

The best part is that it fits in a large pocket and takes regular AA batteries. The batteries also seem to last for quite a while. On mine, the LCD flips out and around so that it can be stored for protection, and also allows for you to take pictures from certain angles and frame them fairly well without having to actually get your mug in the same location.

pg · Post by pg » Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:47 pm

My recommendations:

Get one that's small enough for you to not mind having it with you all the time. If its too big, you won't have it when you need it.

Don't spend more than $300. You can spend more but most people who do are wasting their money. (Personally, I'd shoot for $200-250).

Stick with a name brand like Canon, Sony, etc. I think Canon makes the best point-n-shoot cameras, but really - they're all fine.

Get a 512MB flash card for $30-$40. It'll hold all the shots you'll take in a day.

Get one that takes AA batteries. Buy two sets of AA NiMHd batteries and a charger. Keep one set in the charger, ready to go. Swap the batteries after a full day of use or before you go out if its been a while.

Use it a lot (it costs nothing) so that you ready when its time for that important shot.

Have lots of fun. I think people enjoy taking pictures more now that you can see them right away and can share them easily.

--paul;

Tubaryan12 · Post by **Tubaryan12** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:50 pm

go with the Canon!

MartyNeilan · Post by **MartyNeilan** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:16 pm

Chuck(G) wrote:One thing that I'd recommend is making sure that the camera has a decent hunk of glass (lens) on it. It's really strange to see 8 Mpixel cameras with garbage for optics.

Ditto what Chuck said. If the lense is the size of your fingernail, it is probably a good one to avoid - no electronics can compensate for that. The mid to high level Kodaks have some pretty good optics in them.

Joe Baker · Post by **Joe Baker** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:04 am

pg wrote: I think people enjoy taking pictures more now that you can see them right away and can share them easily.

--paul;

And the greatest thing of all about a digital camera is that you can not only take 100 pictures, but they cost you NOTHING unless they're good enough to print. If they're blurred, or your subject moves just before you take the picture, just hit a button and it's gone. Or take along an extra $40 memory card, and take another 100 pictures. If you do decide to print them, you can stop off at Walmart or Walgreens on the way home, pay 20 cents or so apiece for exactly the prints you want, and carry them out with you.

Oh, one mistake I made with my first digital camera: don't get one with too small of a viewscreen. There are lots of them with 2" diag viewscreens; trust me, get one at least that big. Also, try to get one that will shoot the picture within 1/2 second ("shutter lag"). Some of them take a second or more to actually snap the picture, which makes it hard to take shots of even moderate activity, like a child sitting on the floor playing.

Hmmm. Where's Rick Denney? I'd be interested to hear his thoughts.

BTW, I have a very nice autofocus 35 mm camera if anyone wants to buy it...

I didn't think so.

______________________________
Joe Baker, who bought his daughter a Konica/Minolta D'Image X50 for Graduation -- 5 MegaPix, 3x Optical zoom, lots of great macros, size of a deck of cards, 2" viewscreen, still a pretty long shutter lag -- $298 including a 512 Meg memory chip. She loves it!

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:25 am

Joe Baker wrote:Oh, one mistake I made with my first digital camera: don't get one with too small of a viewscreen. There are lots of them with 2" diag viewscreens; trust me, get one at least that big. Also, try to get one that will shoot the picture within 1/2 second ("shutter lag"). Some of them take a second or more to actually snap the picture, which makes it hard to take shots of even moderate activity, like a child sitting on the floor playing.

They may be a bit larger, but I like the SLR-style cameras that offer both through-the-lens viewfinder or viewscreen. They're really nice to use in high ambient light situations, even if they're not exactly pocket-sized.

Most digital cameras allow you to shoot in bursts--5 or so photos in rapid succession. The camera then takes a bit of time to process what you've shot and you're ready to go again.

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:38 pm

Thanks! That gives me plenty to go on.
MA

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:46 pm

Chuck(G) wrote:They may be a bit larger, but I like the SLR-style cameras that offer both through-the-lens viewfinder or viewscreen. They're really nice to use in high ambient light situations, even if they're not exactly pocket-sized.

I'm with you there Chuck.

All the little box shapes bug me. I'd love to get something with changable lenses, Pentax *ist D (since I have Petax lenses), Canon EOS, or Nikon D50. Better still a medium format with digital back! Like the 645 AFDII with the ZD back.
A digital back for my C330, twin reflex would be nice as well.

This is my current digital, the HP Photosmart 912

aka Pentax EL-2000 (joint HP - Pentax project. HP electronic, Pentax optics)

FWIW, 2.2Mpx (1600x1024) is fine to me. In fact, I use it in 800x600 mode most of the time. Make good 4x5 prints, which is about all 35mm is good for.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:06 pm

I've had my current camera for a couple of years, a Minolta Dimage 7Hi. It was a great box for the price ($350 with some hard shopping) and it still meets my expectations. Too bad it's not made anymore--Minolta is now using Konica designs and branding them "Konica Minolta".

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:58 am

Chuck(G) wrote:I've had my current camera for a couple of years, a Minolta Dimage 7Hi. It was a great box for the price ($350 with some hard shopping) and it still meets my expectations.

I'll say. with a $1300 list, where did you find it so cheap?
Even the refurbs I see are over $500.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:06 am

ThomasDodd wrote:
Chuck(G) wrote:I've had my current camera for a couple of years, a Minolta Dimage 7Hi. It was a great box for the price ($350 with some hard shopping) and it still meets my expectations.
I'll say. with a $1300 list, where did you find it so cheap?
Even the refurbs I see are over $500.

It was a lucky day on ubid.com...

MaryAnn · Post by **MaryAnn** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:21 pm

Update: I did finally buy a digital camara a few weeks ago; I got the Canon Power-whatzit 520. It's great....does what I want out of the box, I don't have to fiddle with it, loads onto my computer fine, and later if I get the hots to try fancier shots I can. Target had a price drop (as did everybody, probably) and it cost $199. Cool! I can click away without worrying that I'm wasting film, and the resolution is fabulous.

MA

DonShirer · Post by **DonShirer** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:18 pm

The web rating sites tend to give much more information than necessary. Look at the Consumer Reports issue rating cameras (check index for the correct month). They have sensible advice without cant. My wife preferred CR to the pages of website info I ran off for her, and ended up with a Kodak model. For her projected uses I think she made a good choice.

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:51 am

MartyNeilan wrote:Ditto what Chuck said. If the lense is the size of your fingernail, it is probably a good one to avoid - no electronics can compensate for that. The mid to high level Kodaks have some pretty good optics in them.

Marty, beware of generalizations based on something like lens size. Digital point-n-shoots usually have a sensor about 5x8mm (or smaller), which means the focal length of a "normal" lens is about 9.5mm. Even a fast 10mm lens is going to be the size of a fingernail. Also, a small lens means that it isn't that fast in terms of its maximum aperture, and slower lenses usually provide more sharpness for the dollar.

To Chuck: Most point-n-shoot lenses from name brands are pretty much as good as the sensors allow them to be. It doesn't take much of a lens to explore the limits of a 5x8 sensor, however high the pixel density.

To MA: Okay, I just removed all I typed because I noticed you already made a choice. And you made a good choice for your purposes.

Rick "observing that the amount of light falling on each pixel has more to do with the quality of the outcome than the number of pixels" Denney

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:13 am

ThomasDodd wrote:All the little box shapes bug me. I'd love to get something with changable lenses, Pentax *ist D (since I have Petax lenses), Canon EOS, or Nikon D50. Better still a medium format with digital back! LIke the 645 AFD with ZD back.
A digital back for my C330, twin reflex would be nice as well.

35mm is good for 8x12" with good technique. After that, the limited information in the negative starts to show, but limiting it to 4x5 seems a little extreme. The digicams with 24x36 sensors (VERY expensive though Canon's 5D is driving down the price) will bump that up to about 11x17. My Canon 10D will make fine 8x10's that I would put on a par with the best I could produce using 35mm.

Hold out for the Pentax 645 Digital, if you want a medium format digital camera. At a projected price of $7500, it is thousands cheaper than the Mamiya. And the lenses are better and cheaper than the Mamiya lenses. The 18MP sensor is made by Kodak and is a usefully large 36x43 format.

I used C-series Mamiya TLR's for commercial work for years, but have finally retired them because of unrepairable faults. I now use Pentax 645's.

I would LOVE to have a large digital sensor device for my view camera, something in the range of 50x80mm. I think that's dreaming only a little less (especially considering the requirement for lottery winnings) than dreaming for a digital back for the C330.

I just got back a set of proofs from a family portrait session where I used both the 10D and the Pentax 645 with the studio lights. Even with 4x5 proofs, the larger format glows in the dark compared to similarly sized prints from the Canon. Format is still king.

Rick "who'll need those lottery winnings for the Pentax digital camera, too" Denney