Need help choosing Digital Camera

[nekomane]

Hi Tob9595,

I think it really depends on what you are going to shoot.

You say that the camera will be for point and shoot/backup. For pure backup, and just viewing on a computer monitor, an inexpensive digital camera should be OK. And I guess you understand that although newer expensive models have all the bells and whistles, most of the time you don't really use them /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

BUT, if you intend to take photos of truly important things, unrelated to work, photos you will look after from time to time, even when you get old and miss the old days, I would recommend the best you can buy at the moment. Unfortunately this will have to go on for quite a long time. Digital cameras are still in the developing stage compared to film cameras. Please remember that 'new and improved' digital cameras of today will be the <$100 cameras 6 months from now. Remember how you thought that a computer with 64MB RAM and a 1GB hard disk was the best you could buy ? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Leica 35mm cameras were said to have been 'perfected' decades ago!

If you want something in between, why not go for the A70 which you may have considered before the A80, though these may be a little more than you are willing to shell out (you can get them for about $200 in Japan).

I use high end digital SLR cameras for work daily, but still take 'personal' shots with some low-tech film cameras with outstanding lenses. I have even recently bought a discontinued second hand point and shoot FILM camera with a Zeiss lens, and though I can not change lenses like an SLR, and it has no zoom, no auto mumbo jumbo, and is made basiclly from plastic, can tell you that it gets better results than the mean looking clunky digital SLRs.

Don't know if this answers your question, just my 2 cents. I get passionate about lights and photography /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif

 

[Double_A]

The difference is there, but discernable mostly when cropping out unnecessary portions of the image and enlarging the desired portion of the photos. This is why in my opinion, the only important "zoom" is optical, not digital.

GregR

 

[eluminator]

Tob, I have a 2 megapixel camera and it's just fine. The pictures have a lot more pixels than my top-of-the-line flat panel monitor. I wouldn't pay a penny for more pixels, unless I wanted to blow them up to wall size murals.
I just took a picture of my buddy here:
http://hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPhoto?GUID=7b4c2063-4575-409a-3ac6-7c3d7fa97152&size=

This $100 camera is infinitely better than my film camera because it doesn't cost me anything, and I can see the picture instantly.

 

[Double_A]

eluminator-

To see that picture, I had to download a 807k file. How on earth did you get such a large file from a 2 megapixel camera?

My 4 megapixel camera set on the second highest setting takes 1mb photos.

I would not expect your to take anything larger than 400k.

But you are correct, if your ONLY going to look at them on a flat panel display then anything more is a waste.

Like anything else there are different levels of use. Some people only take snapshots with disposables, some use thousands of dollars of camera gear. Yet to many people they could not discern a difference until someone points it out to them.

It all depends on the end user and what they fine acceptable.

GregR

 

[TOB9595]

It is a great shot of "buddy"

So I, also, am interested in what you're using /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Tom

 

[eluminator]

I am new to the digital camera game, and I don't really understand the pixel thing. My camera is an HP photosmart 320. It was free with the purchase of MS Office. I use it at the highest picture quality setting which usually produces jpg files of about 800 kb. If you are into details, that picture is 1632 x 1232 x 24 bits, 1/29 sec. f4.5, 72 dpi. As I used the flash, I suppose the shutter speed is irrevelant, but I'm fascinated that all this stuff, and more, is recorded.

Probably the jpg compression algorithm in this camera doesn't compress as much as the one in your camera.

The camera can also act as a flash memory card reader for my computer. I just change the camera's USB protocol from "digital camera" to "disk drive", and I can copy files to and from the memory card.

Mac and Linux users know this but I learned that accidentally. HP doesn't tell you, but you need to update the camera microcode to be able to use 128 MB memory cards. You learn a lot about your camera when you upgrade the microcode. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif These cameras have a "hidden" administration screen, and service screen.

 

[torment]

I looked at a bunch of cameras last night at CompUSA with my friend. I just recently purchased the Olympus C-5060WZ and it takes AWESOME pictures. I looked at the Canon A70 and A80, pictures from those cameras were VERY good. I would recommend sticking to Canon, Olympus, or Nikon. I have a Canon S200 and its a great camera but I needed something more professional and I found it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Double_A]

toment-

The Olympus 5060 is a killer camera! When I bought my A80 they guy standing next to me bought a 5060. Couldn't help sneaking a peek.

GregR

 

[raggie33]

i cant wait to next year todays top a line camera will be tomorows 99 dollor camera

 

[geepondy]

Raggie, you are not off by much. This weekend at Sam's club I saw a Kodak, 3 megpixel with 3x optical zoom and the docking station included for $250. Doesn't have manual modes but has a bunch of scene modes. I read a review on Steves digicams and the pictures looked pretty decent. They also had a fuji two megpixel but also with 3x optical zoom for $150 or maybe less, I forget exactly. Decent point and shoot digicams are really coming down to the casual consumer spending levels now.

 

[raggie33]

[ QUOTE ]
geepondy said:
Raggie, you are not off by much. This weekend at Sam's club I saw a Kodak, 3 megpixel with 3x optical zoom and the docking station included for $250. Doesn't have manual modes but has a bunch of scene modes. I read a review on Steves digicams and the pictures looked pretty decent. They also had a fuji two megpixel but also with 3x optical zoom for $150 or maybe less, I forget exactly. Decent point and shoot digicams are really coming down to the casual consumer spending levels now.

[/ QUOTE ]staples has a 2 megapixel kodak cam for 99 this week

 

[DieselDave]

I'm about to hook up again. I wanted to get a $1,000 camera but have now decided to go the other way, buy a cheapie and wait another 6 months or year to get an SLR. My wife needs the SLR not me, but hasn't convinced me she needs it bad enough to spend that kind of money.

I 'think' I bought one of the first consumer priced digital cameras a few years back and even got it before Kodak's official release date. I believe it was called the DC50. I had been checking with all the camera shops and they were telling me 3-4 weeks to go and all of a sudden I find a guy selling one on the internet. I paid $680 plus shipping and used it for 2-3 years. I believe that was 1996 or 1997. I took it to all the camera shops and gave them a demo/brag fest. Now I remember, the DC40 came out first and I wanted to wait for the higher res. DC50.

My current camera is a Sony Mavica FD83. I am sure I have taken in excess of 5,000 photos, might even be 7,000 photos with this camera and have never had a single problem. I think I bought it in 1999-2000 and use it at work. It has been rained on, used in 100 degrees and used in 25 degrees. The zoom hangs up every once in a while but frankly I only use that when I am taking a photo of an aircraft flying over which is not work related. The Floppy disk media is a double edge sword. It is cheap media, and you can view photos on any comp. with a floppy drive. It holds 4 shots in high res. 8 shots in med. res. and 21-23 shots in low res. Transferring the shots from the floppy to the comp. is IMO too slow. (The main reason I am buying a new camera) When you rename the image file it has to load up the shot twice, once when you select it and once when you change the name. It takes me 4-5 minutes to rename the shots and that is using copy and paste and just using sequential numbers. There is no thumbnail view at all for better organizing unless you transfer the whole floppy to your hard drive.

Pros: Reliability, ease of use, very flexible media, decent low res. shots to be used on the internet and cost, its not a bad way to go and has served me well.

Cons: Slow, and slow. 3.5 drives are becoming a thing of the past.

I think I am going to buy a Fuji A210 tomorrow at Target. 3.2MP. They are $199 and you get a $50 gift card at time of purchase. With my $50 I can buy a 128mb memory card to go with the camera and it will only cost me another $20. Total cost with tax and memory card, $237. I will use it through Christmas and then get the company to buy it from me for actual cost and I will quit using it for personal use. The company gets a free months camera rental and I end up with a free camera for a month, win-win. I did the same thing with the other two cameras. Actually, I tried to get them to buy the DC50 up front but the owner wouldn't spring for it. It took me 3 months of using it at work to get them to buy it from me.

Any negative thoughts on why I won't like the Fuji? I am not planning on getting the cradle, is that a mistake? I only use low res. at work, under 100k stuff. I want to try some 3mp stuff at home to see how it prints at 8"x10".

DD

 

[raggie33]

does that fuji use xd memory?im still wondering if xd will catch on. seems the readers ive found dont do xd.but maybe i looked in wrong place i have a fuji 2650 i love it but it is lacking in low light

 

[eluminator]

DieselDave, 5000+ photos sounds encouraging. I hope my camera does as well. Moving that many pictures via floppy sounds like a pain though.

I don't have a cradle, and don't need one. My NiMH last a long time between charges, and I have some good chargers. Maybe setting it in the cradle would be easier than plugging in the USB cable to transfer pictures to my computer. One more thing to trip over and lose though. I suppose when the USB connector wears out, I can switch to using a cradle.

My camera, and I suppose others too, keeps track of the number of pictures taken. They are all numbered serially (in the file name) when put on the computer. There is also a service screen that shows the count of pictures taken, and the number of times the strobe was used. The trick is finding out how to display the service screen.

 

[Tree]

I have a 2.0mp Fujifilm Finepix 2600Z . I like it alot, it takes some great pictures in my opinion. If you set it to auto mode it can be as easy as turn on, point and click. Most of the pix in the previous examples were in auto mode. I searched and bought this camera so I can have plenty of features to adjust as well as a simple camera my wife can grab and shoot. It works great for both.

It's discontinued so you might find it cheap on ebay or something. It uses 2 AA rechargeable batteries which on a fresh charge will last me a day or so taking about a hundred pics and using the LCD screen alot. If I don't use it much the batts can last weeks. It came with 2 AA Nimh and a charger. I have a Smartmedia 128mb card for it and I can take almost 400 pix at high resolution (when I get snap happy I can fill it in a few days). The best pics seem to be 3-10' indoors with low light and as long as there is good light outdoors the sky is the limit. Not using the flash you can take great low light pix indoors or out at short or long distance, but you have to keep the camera and subject perfectly still.

Here are a few examples.. Lots more in the thread of other peoples pix.

It can take movies up to 20 seconds with no sound. The light has to be good (outdoors in the sun) for the movies to come out good. I don't consider this to be a great feature, but it's there if you want it.