Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Posted: 6/28/2001 7:37:34 AM EDT
While I'm an accomplished film photographer ,I know little about digital.What I need is a camera to take photos for the web and snapshots [3.5x5,4x6]for the wife to use in her scrapbook hobby.! know 640x480 is not enough,but do I need to go as high as 1 or 1.3 MP. Thanks
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:15:52 AM EDT
what kind of printer are you going to use to print for the scrap book. I ask because some printers still dont print over 600dpi. For instance I still have an HP722c which only prints at 600dpi, yet still prints photo quality pictures, so a 640x480 would be alright for what i want to do. Also, for internet and computer display of images, 96dpi is more than sufficient for good quality. So it really depends on your main use and output source. I like the Sony Mavica cameras, but they tend to be expensive. Canon make nice cameras too.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:17:39 AM EDT
I am photo expert, but I have owned three digital cameras over the last couple of years. The first two I owned (Epson&Kodak) were 1.3mp all the pictures came out grainy, no matter what size. I have an Olympus D490Z now, it takes beautiful sharp pictures. It is a 2.1 Mega Pixel camera, you can print up to an 8x10 and have a true photo quality picture. The Olympus has an optical zoom, which is a big plus. What I am getting at is stay 2mp and above for nice quality pictures. My .03 cents Greg in West Virginia
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:18:17 AM EDT
I have the Sony Mavica, save for it it's worth the wait.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:20:09 AM EDT
These things are just like computers, you get more bang for the buck as the technology ages. I would go with a 2 mega camera, but it depends on your price range. You can expect to spend $300-600 on of these babies. You still have to edit your picture with photoshop (or even Microsoft Paint!) to bring the size down to a manageable size for email or posting, but the pictures are really sharp. I chose a Canon S10 2MP. It is small, but the Compact Flash memory cards can be expensive. Check Ebay, as they have a good selection of NEW ones from various camera stores.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:55:39 AM EDT
I've got a Canon S10, it is a 2.11 mexapixel. I couldn't be happier. I've upgraded the memory via ebay to a 64 meg. Now I can take up to 112 shot w/o worries, plus we're not talking compression mode. The only drawback on the Canon S10 is that it eats batteries like any other digital cameras. I only paid 325 for my but make sure you factor in the extra recharger kit for approx. 80. John
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 9:16:03 AM EDT
The Sony Mavica series of cameras is tops in my book. Here at work we have about ten of them, from the first low end 73s to the newest 95s. I can't imagine hassling with the cords or flash cards compared to just plopping a floppy right into my computer and pasting the pictures in any document. The mpeg feature is really nice if you are trying to document an action versus a still shot. Totally reliable and batteries are rechargeable. Other than the price, I can't see any downside. As the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for." dhg2
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 9:32:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2001 9:38:09 AM EDT by madkiwi]
I have had a Kodak DC210+ for the last 3 years. Just under a megapixel (995,328 pixels) and beautiful color. Unfortunatly printing anything bigger than 5 x 7 is just awful, and it has fixed focus which left most shots slightly soft (esp. distance). It had a zoom, but 35mm equiv. was 29-58mm, so great for wide-angle, but sucked on distance. Also had lousy contrast, pushing EV had limited effect. I just spent a month evaluating current offerings to replace this camera. I have only one thing to say: Buy a Canon Powershot G1 if you have any dreams of being happy. Don't sell yourself short. I have taken over 2,000 photos in the last 3 years with my limited digicam, compared to less than 500 film pictures in the previous 3 years. It is just so much fun, the instant gratification is a real plus and the ability to print only the photos you want... At this stage I would not consider any camera less than 3 megapixels, because you will be disappointed with the resolution. And if you buy a digital you will want to moth-ball your 35mm (My Pentax AE with speedwinder and 28mm lens, 70-120mm zoom has not been used in 3 years!). The 3 megapixel cameras are so good that 8x10 prints are stunning. It is my opinion that these cameras are finally good enough to replace film. If you choose to buy one with 1.3 or so megapixels, you limit yourself to doing only those purposes you mention, but buying the higher resolution camera will allow you to do everything you would use a 35mm for. For further study, see these photos. Admittedly he is a pro, but just look at what he can do with the Canon! [url]studio-on-the.net/photography/G1/[/url] See this site for side-by-side image comparisons from current cameras [url]www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM[/url] Professional reviews and user forums [url]www.dpreview.com/[/url] Pricing is steep, I am paying $678 after getting Wolf Camera to do a price-match. But my Kodak cost $540 3 years ago, so not much more for a superior product. Finally, anyone looking for a deal on Compactflash cards? At Amazon until 6/30 you can buy the Viking 128MB card for $109.99 with free shipping, a $15 instant rebate (enter DEALJUNEWALK in the Gift certificate box on checkout) and you can mail in a $25 rebate. Final price $69.99, a freaking steal! Madkiwi (Edited due to the fact that I forgot to mention the pricing info)
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 9:51:05 AM EDT
I am exceedingly happy with my Nikon 995 Coolpix. It has a slight drawback in poor lighting conditions, but if I were a photographer I could use the manual mode to compensate for that. I bought a 128 meg card, cause the high quality pic setting can really eat up megs in a hurry. It is easy to use, fast in taking pics and displaying them and has available screw on wide angle and telephoto lenses. I agree that you need to stay at or above 2 megapixels in order to get high quality prints of anything above a standard pic size, but then you need a printer to handle the resolution also. Also, because it does not have a USB port, I got a flashcard reader and this downloads to my computer at lightning speed, a really worthwhile investment at 29.99. The camera goes for around 600 right now.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 12:09:33 PM EDT
I am also a regular photographer who uses film and I just bought my first digital camera an Olympus E-10 with 4 mega pixel and it is excellent at least so far. It is a little on the pricey side, but it is the only one that looks professional kind of like a Pro 35mm, at least for under $4,000, it lists for a little over $2,100 but I paid $1,625 from Focus Camera out of New York with a full USA guarantee and that is important to me since appearances do count when dealing with the public. I would hate to show up with a camera that looks like the camera their uncle harry used. I have to justify the cost of my services some how. And as to the printer I would suggest getting one of the Epson Photo Printers and not an HP for these reasons, first the quality is amazing the printer I use is the Epson Stylus Photo 780 the resolution is 2880 and the prints can be Borderless. Second the inks are superior to HP inks and are archival at least to 25 years with this printer. If you want your prints to last longer, then Epson has other printers that have inks archival to 200 years. The 780 takes paper up to 8.5 x 11 and will make borderless prints on 8 x 10 paper. It will of course make smaller prints. So to sum it up, I am very happy and satisfied with both the camera and printer.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 3:04:44 PM EDT
GWIGG has the right idea, the Sony CD1000 is what you need.This camera has a built in CD ROM drive used for storage and can slip right into your computer.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 3:40:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2001 3:39:55 PM EDT by Sixtus]
I just bought a Sony DSC-S75. It takes a 3.3 mega pixel pictures and has a Carl Zeiss 3X zoom lens. The pictures are incredible, they look three dimensional. The reason I waited to get this camera is because the shutter speed is 1/1000 th of a second, I believe the Mavica is only 1/500 th of a second. The camera also has a e-mail setting, most of these features are on all better digital cameras. Sony also gives a battery charger, battery, and small 8 mb memory stick with their cameras. I just learned how to post a picture, now I have to learn how to edit it down to the proper size. The camera is a nice size, you could carry it comfortably all. day.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 3:43:05 PM EDT
Bruce, everyone already mentioned the best ones (& to keep it above 3.1 megs), & you already know the obvious, & universal photography compromises (Like the little Cannons being absolute GEMS - BUT, you'd better have a steady hand, or a tripod). The two that really hooked me are the Olympus D460-Z, & Sony's MVCFD83. I guess they're both considered entrance level cameras to [b]experts[/b], but I never plan on paying more than $600 or so for a camera, so these are as good as it gets - [u][i]for me.[/i][/u] The Oly is (a lot more than) everything I'll ever need in a digital camera. The 360's not bad either, that was my last one, & it's still going strong, it just doesn't have the 2X + 3X zoom. It's worth taking a look at epinions to see what others have to say about them. [url]http://www.epinions.com/elec-Photo-Cameras-All/tk_~HP001.1.22?submitted_form=finder_form&quant_127389=-1&quant_128196=-1&quant_128185=128190&quant_128191=-1&finder_form_submitted=++Find++[/url] If the size of the camera doesn't matter too much, the Sonys are hard to beat - inexpensive storage media (a floppy!), & video as well as still images!. . P.S. Don't listen to Sniper_762x51, he's a show-off (And I'm jealous as hell).[:D] [i]It does sound like it might be the one you'd appreciate most if the $ is no problem.[/i]
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 7:54:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:12:45 PM EDT
I picked up an HP 315. It's 2.1 MB; it works OK for snapshots, but it's really sensitive to lighting. If you've got anything bright in the field of view things really go south fast. Doesn't work well in low lighting either. I don't think the floppies are good storage media any more. you can get a 64 mb memory stick for a reasonable chunk of change that will keep 40 or so high res pictures, 80 or so snapshots at lower res. that's enough for most sessions. Most computers these days have a USB connection so it's easy to transfer the photos to the computer. The psychology is different with a digital camera. Take lots of photos. They're free. If you don't like them, just delete them. don't cost nuthin' to see the results.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:15:44 PM EDT
I agree that the Epson prints photos far better than the HP. I've owned both. However Epsons--at least the one that I owned--have a problem with clogging heads. If you don't use them for a couple of months, they plug up and you have to ship them back to the factory for a hefty price--even if they are on "warranty." Are you going to pay $50 shipping and handling for a questionable rebuild, or are you just going to get a new printer? The HP has the heads in the cartridge. The heads clog, you get another cartridge. I have an HP 970 cse, and it's a rugged, fast business printer that prints adequate photos. IMHO, however, you are wasting your money if you buy a lo-res cameral to print traditional photos with. The newer 3 megapixel cameras print sharp, grainless 8X10's. It may be worth waiting for the prices to drop.
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 8:55:21 PM EDT
Take a look at one of these, Fuji FinePix 4900. [url]http://www.fujifilm.com/tcm.html?x-tempest-op=generic&ContentId=2730&UserTypeId=2&CurrentTopCategory=4&pagetype=ContentItemLeaf[/url] This is an awsome camera. You can do anything with it that you can a regular SLR camera, meaning you can take full control of the camera manually. I shopped around and chose this one. It retails for around the same as the Nikon CoolPix 990 but has soooooooooo many more features. I shopped around and picked mine up for $750. I think that if you go this route, you will be completely happy with this. My .02, I would stay away from the Sony. They use the convient floppys but they are slow, long delay between shots while writing to the disk. Hope this is of some help. CH
Link Posted: 6/28/2001 11:56:32 PM EDT
I've got an HP C200, which takes good pictures, but eats batteries like you would not believe! I'm saving for one of the Sony Mavicas, like GWIGG said. I've used one, and loved it.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 5:52:26 PM EDT
BTT! DaMan
Top Top