You guys that are really into digital cameras...

The web site www.steves-digicams.com reviews many, many digicams. Most of you that are into digital cameras at all know this. In the web site he has a review site where you can read the individual reviews. For each camera review there is a sample page in which many of the sample photos are the same subject from camera to camera. There is one picture of a red brick what looks to be an apartment building with a big red chimney in the upper right corner. Towards the lower left hand side, there is a blue street sign called "Nicholson St 400" with the Nicholson being bigger text. If you download or view this picture at a 1:1 ratio (not zoomed in or out), the legibility of the text on this street sign is a good clarity test for the particular camera. My camera is a three year old Nikon CP990 3 meg pixel. The sign is basically unreadable with this camera. Most of the current offerings of 4 or 5 megapixel cameras render the text readable although blurry, at least the bigger text Nicholson part. With some of the better ones such as the Olympus 5050, you can make out the St. 400 part although it's quite blurry. However if you really want to feel sick knowing that any camera you buy will be inferior unless you have a lot of cash to throw around, download or view that particular picture from Steve's Canon EOS-1DS review. It completely blows away the other cameras even other "Pro" digital SLR cameras such as the Nikon D100.

For the regular gadget folks, such as myself, I felt the Canon Powershoot G3 and Olympus 5050 were two of the better cameras from judging the sample pictures (purely subjective of course). Both have their advantages and disadvantages compared to each other but I thought they both did a better job then the more expensive Nikon 5700 and Minolta Dimage 7Hi and I'm a Nikon man. If I were to upgrade my CP990 tomorrow, I would probably choose the Olympus 5050.

I got tired of seeing all these great closeups that are posted here knowing that I didn't have that capability. With a list of required specifications that met my personal "needs" coupled with "watching my pennies", I ordered a Pentax Optio 330GS. $299 w/free shipping from BestBuy.com.

It has pretty good macro capability. I wanted to be able to use AA batteries (easier to find & feed in a pinch), compact flash media (to be compatible with my HP photosmart 315), 3x optical zoom, manual capabilities, 3 MP, and in a small package. The only thing I didn't get (but wanted) was the ability to use filters and/or accessory lenses (but I still have my old Minolta 35mm with those accessories - but haven't used it in ages).

I checked the picture you spoke of with the street sign and you can read it, though it's hard to make out the St 400. I had been to that site before, but hadn't gone that deep into the review pages. Thanks for pointing that out and it looks like I am going to be happy with my choice!

For anyone thinking of buying a Digital camera (or other photographic stuff) online or by mail order, here is a link to an article you should read before you get out your credit card:
CAMERA SALES SCAMS

Steve's digicams is a great site, and I also recommend http://www.dcresource.com/ and http://www.imaging-resource.com/ Great in-depth reviews etc.

I've been agonizing for two months which new digital camera to buy- I just can't decide between a Nikon 5700, Minolta 7i (or 7Hi), Sony 717, or maybe just "settle" for a Nikon 4500 or Fuji 602s. They all have an equal number but different types of advantages and disadvantages for my particular needs.

Anyone have the Sony 717 and done any night shots with it? It has built in infrared illuminator and IR capability, but I haven't been able to find any examples of how it actually does in the dark.

I learned volumes from here:

http://dpreview.com

Very very in-depth reviews. Very technical reviews of EVERY feature(and accessory) of each camera. Then very critical of every aspect of Digital photography.

Silviron, I had a DSC-F707 and traded it in for a Canon Pro 90 IS. The DSC-F717 looks very very good but I have gotten so used to the Canon flip and twist screen that I dont know if I can do without it. Also, memory stick storage is terribly limited and you can only store about 50 pics on the largest memory stick available. I'll get to try one out for a week next month. I have a feeling that my next camera will be the Nikon Coolpix 5700 or I may have to wait till Canon Upgrades the Pro 90 IS...

Best regards,
Randy

Yeah, that memory stick sucks, but the Zeiss lens is supposed to be superb, and the "hologram" focusing assist is supposed to be great for dim-light shooting.

I understand that Sony is supposed to be coming out with a new version that will go to 512M, but they WON'T be backwards compatible with curent cameras. I hate it when these companies go with proprietary stuff like that for no good technological reason.

Dpreview is a good site too, I have it bookmarked but use the other ones more often.

I'd definitely go with the Nikon 5700 too, except for one thing: I want to be able to do a lot of wide angle stuff (28mm equivalent) and the 5700 isn't threaded for accessories, you have to use a clamp on third party adapter that is both overly expensive and unwieldy... That is the main reason I'm considering the Minolta 7i: it has 28-200mm equivalent without having to use any lens adapter.

But then, the Minolta requires a proprietary external flash, and due to the "pre-flash" you can't use normal slave units like you can with the Nikons.

Of course, what would be perfect would be a Nikon D100 but by the time I bought the lenses I need, it would be about $3,000 to $3500, and I sure can't justify spending that kind of money now.

I have a feeling that I'm just going to go with the Nikon 4500 though- I have a ton of accessories for my current Nikon 950, and just about all of them will work with the 4500.

All I have is a kodak EZ-200: no flash, 4 MB fixed memory, usb, web and digicam functions in addition to being Kodak's digital version of the 110 Brownie Camera. Web and digicam are via the computer and the software supplied on cdrom.

I have extremely limited use for any kind of camera.

I agree that for anyone buying a digital camera, read www.dpreview.com and see if Phil has reviewed your particular model. If he has, it will be a very thorough review complete with comparisions to similar cameras along with direct color chart comparisons as well.

For 5 meg pixels higher end cameras in my opinion, the Sony F717 and Olympus 5050 are both superior to the Minolta 7HI and Nikon 5700 in picture output. The Nikon's colors are not as accurate and the Minolta's finer resolution is not as good as the others. Lots of reviewers thought the colors were over saturated with Sony's prior release, the F707 particularly the reds but most reviewers think they have corrected that problem with the F717. In Phil's review of the F717, he does a direct color chart comparison with the Nikon 5700 and I think the Sony wins hands down. There are of course the user operable features of the camera as well to consider. Both the Olympus 5050 and Sony DSC F717 offer low/no light autofocus assist while the Nikon 5700 and Minolta 7Hi do not. This feature is important to me. That is the biggest drawback of my Nikon Coolpix 990, it refuses to focus in low light. Phil says the 5700 is not that great either.

I was at the one of the local camera shops today looking for something novel to clean our optics and I looked at the Olympus 5050 while I was there. Nice camera. I took a macro of the SMD PCB in my keyless entry fob and the picture was a heck of a lot better than what my DC280 can do. I could read the numbers on the tiniest SMD resistors on the board. It was also fairly compact for the amount of stuff it can do. Lots of manual settings. It looks like I can adjust the white balance so that LED tints show up more accurately. It was about $700.

Not sure if this helps..

Peter

There are certain digital camera features I consider "must have".

1. must have at least x3 "optical" zoom
2. must have at least 2 megapixels
3. must use aa batteries
4. must have an optical viewfinder
5. must use common storage format

Raven

Raven, those were my "basic" requirements (as well as watching the price). Reference my choice in my previous post (Pentax Optio 330GS), it met those as well as some additional, including good "manual" capability. I wanted some good macro shots, minimum distance in macro on this is about 4" and I believe the optical zoom is functional in that mode. I got tired of seeing the good close-ups here, then the "photo" contest came up and I didn't feel my current camera could "produce" for me, so.....

Silviron had a good link on some of the scams, reference "gray market" cameras...I didn't think "Best Buy" would screw up. Even though it's ordered on their website, you can return goods to their stores, and I have one about 2 miles from my house.

Darn it! When I was putting together my "short list" of cameras, I didn't look at the Olympus 5050 because the primary reference I was using at the time only had about 1/4 the information on it as on the others in that class. So, when I started researching on the web I pretty much ignored it.

Now, you guys made me look at it closer, and it is good enough to add to my dilemma. Darn it!

I do have an old Olympus 600-L, and while I rarely use it because I prefer my Nikon 950 overall, that old 600 has superb color rendition, and in that respect is better than ANY of the other digital cameras I have tried.

Oh, and as regards a camera seller- I have had superb service from B&H ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ ) They aren't quite as cheap as the some of the grey market and high pressure dealers, but I have been really happy with them on several recent orders.

Originally posted by Silviron:
Darn it! When I was putting together my "short list" of cameras, I didn't look at the Olympus 5050 because the primary reference I was using at the time only had about 1/4 the information on it as on the others in that class. So, when I started researching on the web I pretty much ignored it.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The 5050 is on my short list as well. It comes with a battery charger and set of batteries not that I personally need it. It also comes with a remote which I think could be handy. If the Sony F717 wasn't so bulky and awkward shaped, that might be at the top of my list.

Phil at dpreview just reviewed the Oly 5050. Less then stellar rating but the sample images look good to me.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc5050z/

If only the Canon G3 had a five meg sensor, I'd buy it tomorrow.

If only the Canon G3 had a five meg sensor, I'd buy it tomorrow.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Unless you are going to print some REALLY large prints (11x14+) the G3 might be a better buy.
I've just upgraded from a G2 to a G3 this week.
Took over 2k pics with the G2 and couldn't be more pleased.

wow, i have the sony 85. it got a really good review and i actually learned something! who'dda thunk?

Originally posted by snuffy:
If only the Canon G3 had a five meg sensor, I'd buy it tomorrow.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Unless you are going to print some REALLY large prints (11x14+) the G3 might be a better buy.
I've just upgraded from a G2 to a G3 this week.
Took over 2k pics with the G2 and couldn't be more pleased.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I know, the G3 gets good reviews and takes excellent pictures although slightly a bit too soft in my opinion. It's just that I currently own a 3 meg Nikon CP990 and if going to upgrade, want to shoot for at least a 5 meg pixel value. Still on the sample pictures, the ones from the G3 were clearly superior to the ones from my camera....there must be more enhancements in the past three years (when I bought mine) then just the slightly higher pixel count. Don't understand why Canon didn't make the jump to 5 megpixels instead of remaining with the 4 megpixels that is present on the G2.

Please post your impressions on the G3. Two problems I have with my Nikon in which I hope to eliminate with my next purchase, is the complete inability to focus in low light levels (not even real low in some cases) and lots of red eye when using the internal flash.