Digital Camera

Storage space will depend on what size memory card you get for it.

I suggest a rather huge one I have 256 megs, and it''s great.
Also - it''s a much better solution to a USB memory key if you can get a USB reader for the card.

Most only come with 16 or 32 megs, which is often less than a roll of film.


Battry life? Keep spares handy is usualy a better plan.
I find with my camera, you get only a few minutes between getting the low-battry warning and the camera turning off.

NiMH (nickel-metal-hallide (IIRC?), pronounced "nym-hi") are good.


Zoomy-lense () is good, not totaly necessary, but I''d recomend it. My camera has a 3x zoom, and you can also attach other lenses to it.

Max resolution. 3 Megapixles is probabably a good minimum. Try to get more if possible, however.


Depending on what you''re doing, consider if you want it completly automatic, or you want to have some stuff manual. Mine does both automatic and manual. I doubt you can even get ones that are purely manual.

Of course, that''s getting into the photography side of things - perhaps the Bishop has something to add?

---

Free Game: Yet Another Falling Block Game

Digital camera isn''t capitalized.

It is if you Want One.

quote:

---

Original post by Andrew Russell
Zoomy-lense () is good, not totaly necessary, but I'd recomend it.

---

Optical Zoom is the correct term,
And yes, in fact...I highly recommend it. Optical Zoom > Digital Zoom.

However. Money wise. A powerful optical zoom is more expensive, but much better quality. Digital Zoom degrades picture quality. (Most digital cameras come with both optical and digital, where digital zoom extends the lens's range).

[Optical zoom range                | Digital zoom extention]
 

And definetly get something beyond 3x Megapixles.

[edited by - Programmer One on November 12, 2003 1:22:37 AM]

I recently bought a Sony DSC-P10. I like it a lot--5 megapixels, shoots still pictures and movies, average zoom... I didn''t really shop around for features. My coworker pointed me to this one. It retails for $450 US here in Tucson.

---

Sycophancy is a disease.

Why isn''t my sig blue?

---

Sycophancy is a disease.

You won''t get a good Digi Cam for $300 (new, anyway). If you want something decent (I''d say don''t go less than 3 megapixels), you''re probably looking at $500 with everything included (flash memory, battery recharger, case, etc). We went with the Canon Powershot A70, and it''s a pretty good camera, imo. Check out some online review sites to see what meets your budget and needs.

I''m gonna get one myself (maybe today!) so I''m kinda in the same situation as you.

For about the price you want you can get a Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-U30, which is the one I''m problably gonna get. But it''s only 2 MP

Why?

- It''s Sony
- It''s really small and easy to carry in your pocket
- Good looking
- Pretty cheap
- It has gotten good reviews


But I might still change my opinion if anyone knows any flaws in it or know of a better camera?

I''m in the same boat as AndreTheGiant, but I do want a small camera.

/MindWipe

Thanks everyone!

Thats unfortunate that they are so expensive. I was thinking about getting one like 3 years ago, and I thought to myself "maybe Ill try again in 3 years when these things arnt so expensive". But it looks like digital cameras havn''t plummeted in price nearly as much as other computer type stuff has.

I guess I might have to increase my buget to 500$ or so, but then I wouldn''t be able to eat for a month or so.

Anyway, thanks again
Good luck on your purchase MindWipe. Lemme know which one you get, and if its good or not

I don't see any reason to get over 3 megapixel camera. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to even use those extra megapixels you'll need to take high quality shots which would produce images that are greater than 1600x1200. You couldn't even see the whole picture on your computer screen unless you're running some insanely high resolution. That's also too big to print on 8.5 x 11 paper without scaling it down.

Stick with a nice 3 megapixel or even a 2 megapixel if you don't plan on printing higher than 8 x 10 pictures and are on a tight budget.

BTW, for some great info and reviews on digital cameras you can't beat The Imaging Resource.

For a second opinion you could always check out Steve's Digicams. It's a less professional site, but still some good information.

update: Ah, yes, take a look at this page from The Imaging Resource. It will show you what megapixel camera you need by taking into consideration what size of pictures you plan on printing.

For instance, theres no need to buy higher than a 2.0 megapixel camera if you're not going to print larger than 5 x 7 prints. No need to go over 3 megapixel if you're not going to print larger than 8 x 10 prints. A 5 megapixel won't print any better 8 x 10 shots than a 3 megapixel camera. Well, it may, but it certainly won't have anything to do with the megapixels.


- Houdini

[edited by - Houdini on November 12, 2003 8:27:35 AM]

I never really planned on printing stuff at all. I suppose I would have printed some pictures at some point, but when I think Digital Camera (capitals ), I think about storing the pics on my hard drive, or puttin them on my web site, or emailing them to friends, etc etc. In other words, mostly keep them in electronic form.

So when you say "if you''re not going to print larger than 5 x 7 prints.", does that correspond to roughly a 5X7 inch picture on the screen too? Or would it appear smaller on a screen.

Anyway Im confused about the whole megapixel thing now. I initially thought it had to do with the resolution (ie 72 dots per inch, 200 dpi, 300 dpi, etc), but the way you talk Houdini, it seems like megapixels have to do with the actual size of the picture (ie 200 X 200 pixels, 1600 X 1200 pixels etc). So does this mean that the number of megapixels doesnt affect the resolution itself?

Thanks for the links. Im checking them out now...

I just got my daughter a kodak digital camera from Walmart for about $130US. It is 2MP, up to 3x optical zoom, 16MB, USB, review screen, flash, uses 2AA batteries but better to get the lithiums or rechargeable pack. As far as I can tell you can''t set it up as a webcam, which is odd.

Pay about $60 more for a docking cradle that recharges it and I believe that includes a rechargeable battery.

I''m planning to get another cam like that for my other kid for xmas and let them share the same dock.

She did an 8x10 print and it looked great.

My problem now it enforcing a rule that they don''t print anything unless they tell me what the are going to DO with the prints. Otherwise my ink expenses will go thru the roof!

I bought the CyberShot U30 now. It costec 230€ (Which is cheap in Finland) but you can get it for $199.

So far I''m pleased with it. It''s really tiny, 2 MP and is said to have good picture quality and it has a nice design.

/MindWipe

quote:

---

Original post by AndreTheGiant
I never really planned on printing stuff at all. I suppose I would have printed some pictures at some point, but when I think Digital Camera (capitals ), I think about storing the pics on my hard drive, or puttin them on my web site, or emailing them to friends, etc etc. In other words, mostly keep them in electronic form.

---

For viewing, emailing, or displaying on websites, you''ll want smaller pictures. Smaller pictures make it easier for look at (ie, no scrolling), and are much faster to download. A 1 megapixel camera would get the job done quite well.

However, odds are you''ll want to print those pictures out sooner or later. If you want to print the common 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 pictures, and even an occasional 8 x 10 then you''ll want a 2 megapixel camera. If you''ll print lots of 8 x 10''s then you may want to consider a 3 megapixel as those produce slightly better quality pictures at that size compared to the average 2 megapixel camera.

I wouldn''t worry about getting higher than a 3 megapixel camera unless you plan on printing posters or something.

quote:

---

Original post by AndreTheGiant
So when you say "if you''re not going to print larger than 5 x 7 prints.", does that correspond to roughly a 5X7 inch picture on the screen too? Or would it appear smaller on a screen.

---

No, it''ll be a different size on the screen, depending on the resolution your desktop is.

A 1600 x 1200 screen resolution would print a great 5 x 7 picture, and a pretty good 8 x 10 picture. However, a 1600 x 1200 screen resolution is usually a bit too large for just viewing pictures on your PC.

Oh, and remember that digital cameras allow for you to take "lower quality" shots. In other words, if you get a 2 megapixel camera doesn''t mean all your shots will be 1600 x 1200 pixels large. The camera may have the option of using a lower quality setting which produces 800 x 600, for example.

quote:

---

Original post by AndreTheGiant
Anyway Im confused about the whole megapixel thing now. I initially thought it had to do with the resolution (ie 72 dots per inch, 200 dpi, 300 dpi, etc), but the way you talk Houdini, it seems like megapixels have to do with the actual size of the picture (ie 200 X 200 pixels, 1600 X 1200 pixels etc). So does this mean that the number of megapixels doesnt affect the resolution itself?

---

Megapixels is basically the measure of how many pixels the camera uses to record the digital image of your shot. Obviously the more pixels used the better quality the image. However, the more pixels used the larger the picture becomes. There''s no need to take super high quality shots if you are going to crop them down just to print them or view them on your PC.


- Houdini

quote:

---

Original post by Houdini
I don''t see any reason to get over 3 megapixel camera. Please, someone correct me if I''m wrong, but to even use those extra megapixels you''ll need to take high quality shots which would produce images that are greater than 1600x1200. You couldn''t even see the whole picture on your computer screen unless you''re running some insanely high resolution. That''s also too big to print on 8.5 x 11 paper without scaling it down.

---

300 dpi is the desired source resolution for quality printing with lasers exposing the photographic paper, whether on a LightJet 5000 or a Frontier system. A high quality inkjet, such as an Epson 2200 would presumably work with similar inputs. At 300 dpi, a 3,000 x 2,000 pixel image would give you about 10 x 7 inches - that''s not quite an 8 x 10. Now, 3,000 x 2,000 is 6 megapixels.

This Saturday, I''m probably going to buy the Nikon D100 body. No lenses come with the body. All the standard Nikon lenses work with the body. It costa about $1,500.

It''s 6.1 megapixels.

A couple of things. It''s a traditional SLR. When you fire the shutter, the mirror pops up to let the light hit the CCD. You hear this. Nothing is more satisfying to hearing a rapid series of clicks giving you feedback that the shots are being exposed. Like any good SLR, the aperture ring is on the lens. You put the camera in Aperture Priority Mode (if you want) and then just rotate the aperture ring on the lens to instantly change the aperture - quickly. No fiddling and fussing with awkward buttons, button sequences, menus, or bad lcd displays which don''t communicate this information to you in the viewfinder. Also, it''s an SLR, not a range finder, as all consumer grade digital cameras are - that means that you are looking through the lens and seeing exactly what the lens is seeing.

You can set focusing to manual, single shot with lock, or continuous focusing. It will shoot up to 3 frames per second, and 6 continuously before the buffer needs a few seconds to catch up. Shutter speeds range from 30 seconds to 1/4000th, plus a bulb setting.

I could go on about how the dials and controls are solid, and at your fingertips perfectly, and all the relevant data is communicated to you in the viewfinder.

Anyway, I''ve owned a Nikon Coolpix 5000 digital (top of the line consumer grade digital) and it didn''t do much for me. I''ve shot with point and shoots before. I''ve owned a Contax TVS-1 35mm camera with a Carl Zeiss lens, two large format cameras with a Nikkor 210 mm lens, a Rodenstock 150mm lens, a Calumet 90mm lens, a Nikon 8008s, a 35-80mm Nikkor lens, a 105mm macro 2.8 Nikkor lens, a 24-50mm Nikkor lens, and I''ve shot medium format cameras as well, including a Mamiya 7 and a Mamiya 645.

quote:

---

This Saturday, I''m probably going to buy the Nikon D100 body....It costa about $1,500...It''s 6.1 megapixels...Nothing is more satisfying to hearing a rapid series of clicks giving you feedback that the shots are being exposed...Like any good SLR, the aperture ring is on the lens...Shutter speeds range from 30 seconds to 1/4000th, plus a bulb setting.
Anyway, I''ve owned a Nikon Coolpix 5000 digital (top of the line consumer grade digital)...I''ve owned a Contax TVS-1 35mm camera with a Carl Zeiss lens, two large format cameras with a Nikkor 210 mm lens, a Rodenstock 150mm lens, a Calumet 90mm lens, a Nikon 8008s, a 35-80mm Nikkor lens, a 105mm macro 2.8 Nikkor lens, a 24-50mm Nikkor lens, and I''ve shot medium format cameras as well, including a Mamiya 7 and a Mamiya 645.

---

Well, Laaa-Teeeeeeee-DAAA!
Thats wonderful for you!
What about me?

Actually I''m just kidding, that was interesting
I might find some more info on those cameras you mentioned and see if they are what I want/are in my price range. Maybe I''ll come back with some specific questions about them for you, if thats alright.


Thanks again.

What are the reasons that you want a camera?

quote:

---

Original post by bishop_pass
300 dpi is the desired source resolution for quality printing with lasers exposing the photographic paper, whether on a LightJet 5000 or a Frontier system. A high quality inkjet, such as an Epson 2200 would presumably work with similar inputs. At 300 dpi, a 3,000 x 2,000 pixel image would give you about 10 x 7 inches - that''s not quite an 8 x 10. Now, 3,000 x 2,000 is 6 megapixels.

---

Ah, thanks for the clarification bishop_pass. I thought I may have been missing something. My printer, being a non-photo printer, requires me shrinking a 1600 x 1200 image to fit on a 8 x 10 paper. From what I''ve found out by doing a little more research, it seems that photo printers will allow you to print pictures as any size and the printer themselves will "shrink" the image without losing quality.

Still, I''ve seen 3 megapixel 8 x 10 printouts and they look very much like a real photo developed at a lab. I don''t see how a 6 megapixel printout would improve the quality unless you magnify the picture. But for professionals or very-heavy hobbyists (as you seem to be) getting the best quality is important.

BTW, I''m looking at purchasing the Epson Stylus Photo R300M as soon as I can find it at a local store. Seems like a real good printer for us occasional users of digital cameras. I was previously going to go with the Canon i960, but I think this is a better printer.

Oh, and to answer your question to AndreTheGiant:

quote:

---

Original post by AndreTheGiant
I never really planned on printing stuff at all. I suppose I would have printed some pictures at some point, but when I think Digital Camera (capitals ), I think about storing the pics on my hard drive, or puttin them on my web site, or emailing them to friends, etc etc. In other words, mostly keep them in electronic form.

---

- Houdini