[wANCO tHE sANE]

Hey. For the past few weeks I was thinking about getting a digital camera for just goofing off with. What kind of digital camera should I get? I'm not going to do any real serious photography with it, I just want something cheap, okay quality pics, and something for begginers... Any suggestions?

[Paul S]

Kodak all the way. Very good quality, and very easy to use. The software is simple and easy to learn. Plus they are a camera company, not a hardware company dabbling in cameras. Therefore their lenses and optics are better, giving you much better quality.

[CMYKid]

as a serious photographer among other things I'm pretty underwhelmed by Kodak....most of their cameras and optics are subbed out anyways...they should stick with film. I'm pretty happy with the most recent of the Sony digitals tho. If you average features, versatility, image quality and price i think they come out ahead... email me if you want to see some examples, otherwise i'll try and throw up an index today...

now...if you REALLY want a good camera, about the best around at the moment is the Olympus Camedia E-10. it's an incredible fixed-lens (always better) digital SLR that has a lot of pro SLR features. the resolution is the same as you achieve when scanning a 35mm negative, which was always the big barrier...


:ryan

[Naplander]

I recently bought a canon digital IXUS V camera. I think it may be called elph or something in the states. It cost me £400.

It is an amazing camera - so small - and can even shoot short movies. It comes with some great software as well.

Apple used a picture of the camera in their iBook sales pitch (I think they even sell it at the Apple Store).

Anyway, I love the camera...mainly cause it's so small/portable and therefore I am more inclined to take it out with me and get some wicked shots.

Good luck,

have fun

Nap

[wANCO tHE sANE]

Thanks for your suggestions. I;ll be looking into the Kodak, Sony, and this Canon IXUZ V camera. Maybe if I take up photography as a hobby, I'll get that Olympus camera CMYKid mentioned. Thanks again!

[aaanorton]

Check out these reviews. This site reviews just about every camera out there and is very informative.
I also like the Sonys and Nikons as well.
The E-10 was an amazing camera, when it came out. Right now, though, I'd take the Sony DSC-S85 over it.
Cliff

[wANCO tHE sANE]

Wow, that's one really useful site! I think I'm getting either a sony or a kodak though. Thanks!

[Paul S]

I assume you are looking in the $500 or less range here. If so, don't go Sony. You would have to get a Mavica and they really suck. Most digital cameras will come with 8MB of memory and will fit 20 or 30 pictures at a decent quality setting. The Mavica's use floppy disks which are only 1.4MB, but still need to take the same amount of pictures to make it practical. To do this, it has to compress the pictures a ton. The quality is awful because of this.

Also, at $399, the Mavica 75 takes 640x480 pictures (or 0.3 megapixels) compared to Kodak at the same price range is 2.2 Megapixels. That's more than 7 times the resolution for the same money.

Another downside to the floppy is that you need to buy a floppy drive if you have a newer Mac.

I work for a company that sells Mavica's and have used almost every single model ever made. Even the high end $1000 versions don't hold a candle to the $400 model from almost any other company.

[nana2]

Keep in mind that Sony MemoryStick modules cost a lot more than CompactFlash, even with the recent price cut.

[wANCO tHE sANE]

Oh right... Thanks for bringing the memory stick up, i forgot about that....

[CMYKid]

DO NOT BUY A MAVICA!! i wasnt referring to them. they suck. i want them to die. I was referring to the Cybershot model line...just couldnt remember the name at the moment. We drink at work.

that Sony DSC85 isnt a bad model, but its still fairly consumer. I cant see using it with any success in a studio like the E-10...

anywho, look at the Cybershots...I've been VERY happy with them...

also see: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php3

i use a digital camera for family photos-just recreation

compact flash is cheapest and best with mac
a usb reader is cheap and the flash cards are reasonable
(64mb=$60)

i have a canon i300 and am very pleased with its
pocket size and picture quality
the software that ships with it is easy to use
(using it on g4 400-g4 733 (quicksilver) and ibook (dual usb))

this camera is already under $500 on the net

[wANCO tHE sANE]

Thanks dude, I havn't bought the camera yet and this page helping me with making my decision along with that other page. Thanks.

[bender]

I have the Kodak DC4800 and cannot recommend it enough. You can find it online for about $499, plus there was a $100 rebate when I bought it a few months ago, and it might still be available. That's a bargain for a 3 Megapixel camera. Best all-around digital camera you can buy, IMO.

Pick it up with a Zio! compact flash reader, and you'll be happy.

[bender]

P.S.- Avoid the Sony's, because they use the crappiest storage media for their digital cameras.
You'll be stuck with their proprietary, overpriced memory sticks, or burning to mini-CD's, which is ridiculously power-intensive for a battery-operated camera...and of course the cheap Mavicas use floppies...what were they thinking!?? A single 3 megapixel image uses about 600K to 1MB!!!

Stick with a camera that uses Compactflash or Smartmedia if possible. Also, don't pick a camera because it can record video--the quality is poor on most consumer-level cameras, so focus on what's important: good image quality. Buy a separate camcorder if you need video.

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by CMYKid:
<STRONG>that Sony DSC85 isnt a bad model, but its still fairly consumer. I cant see using it with any success in a studio like the E-10...</STRONG>

We're comparing a $2000 top-of-Olympus'-line to a Sony Prosumer $800 unit. Other than the dedicate hot shoe on the Sony (which could be worked around w/ a slave or slave flash) I don't know what you mean by this. Sony's optics are great: Zeiss. The color reproduction is one of the best in the biz. And a true 4MP format.
You can of course soot in manual, in fact the one complaint to this camera is that it doesn't have as many "features" as say the Nikon 995 (which is a true competitor), such as lighting condition correction. Certainly not an issue in the studio (or for most pros anywhere). If this camera had selectable color spaces, it would be near perfect for the money.

Originally posted by bender:
<STRONG>P.S.- Avoid the Sony's, because they use the crappiest storage media for their digital cameras.
You'll be stuck with their proprietary, overpriced memory sticks</STRONG>

OK, so you can't use CF cards. So what? Memory sticks are certainly not "crappy". They're just not standard. This can be an inconvenience, but it's not the end of the world. Sony makes quality products that are often proprietary. Aren't you using a Mac right now? Aren't Macs more Mac-like because they're proprietary?
Memory stick prices are falling (while gaining market share) and their sizes are getting larger. In fact you really don't need huge/slow cards anymore w/ things like the Digital Wallet cropping up.
I think Sony takes a lot of heat for trying to make a viable option to the norm. They're trying to develop a new storage standard that is successful as well as profitable.
Cliff

[San Acoustic]

I was a pro photographer for 10 years (two decades ago) who used only Nikon bodies and lenses. I have no intention of returning to that line of work but am curious as to how the pro digital cameras stack up against their film counterparts.

F'rinstance, how would two prints of the same subject taken at the same time under the same lighting conditions compare, one taken lets say with whatever the top-of-the-line Nikon film camera is now with the top-of-the-line Nikon digital? I've seen consumer-type-camera comparisons between digital and digital, but not between digital and film.

How about under marginal lighting conditions? Can you "push" a digital image as you can when developing film? Is there any need to? Is the question even relevant?

How would a Nikon digital image stack up against, oh, a Hassleblad's with the larger (120-film) format? Or even a 120-film Konika?

Is there any projection (like Moore's law) that predicts how fast prices are falling for digital cameras and how fast the quality is improving?

What is the digital-film revolution doing to the price of silver?

Is that Hassleblad that was free to anyone who could grab it still orbiting the moon? An inquiring, if aged, mind wants to know.

Just went to the Hassleblad site. Twelve bodies are on Luna. Only the magazines were returned.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[nana2]

Sony Memorysticks are only available in sizes upto 128MB at the moment. Also given that some types of memory stick implement a copy protection system they are not the best choice for cheap, small storage. Digital wallets are fine if you want to spend a couple hundred dollars more.

[nana2]

A large format cannot be beaten for large blowups, where digital cameras lack the resolution of film. But at A4 print sizes, you can't really tell a digital from a film. The beauty of the digital is you can either under/overexpose when taking the photo, or do a myriad number of things in Photoshop.

[CMYKid]

We're comparing a $2000 top-of-Olympus'-line to a Sony Prosumer $800 unit. Other than the dedicate hot shoe on the Sony (which could be worked around w/ a slave or slave flash) I don't know what you mean by this. Sony's optics are great: Zeiss. The color reproduction is one of the best in the biz. And a true 4MP format.

hey, Cliff, you made the comparison, I was just responding to it... and while the retail price is supposed to be 2 grand you can find them pretty easily for around 1100-1300. I know it's stilll slightly apples to oranges, my point was that for a few bucks more than the Sony you can get a lot. I still love the Cybershot series and carry one everywhere... I DO hate Mammary Sticks tho...way overpriced. Think I'll stick with CF and Microdrive technology.

SanAcoustic: As good as the technology has gotten film still beats digital for a lot of reasons. You cant push digital per se like you can film. You get degredation in much the same way as film but it looks a lot worse. Compare digital to Medium or large format and the differences are even more apparent. I've also had MUCH better luck pulling out viable prints from improperly exposed (yeah, i've made a few of those... ) shots on film.

I havent noticed black and white photo paper getting any more expensive...has anyone else?

mostly....as much as i enjoy the minor convenience of digital, i'll never embrace it completely because i enjoy gettiing my hands wet... and hey, we all know chicks dig guys who's hands hands smell like fixer...

:ryan

[wANCO tHE sANE]

I'm just curious after San Acoustic said this, but how many of you have been or are proffesional photgraphers?

Thanks for all of you for helping me out BTW.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: wANCO tHE sANE ]

[Paul S]

I am not a professional photographer. I just take (or really more so my wife) thousands of pictures of our daughter. She can't stop. It's an addiction. Since it's digital, it's free, so she just clicks away...

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by CMYKid:
<STRONG>

hey, Cliff, you made the comparison, I was just responding to it... and while the retail price is supposed to be 2 grand you can find them pretty easily for around 1100-1300. I know it's stilll slightly apples to oranges, my point was that for a few bucks more than the Sony you can get a lot. I still love the Cybershot series and carry one everywhere... I DO hate Mammary Sticks tho...way overpriced. Think I'll stick with CF and Microdrive technology.

SanAcoustic: As good as the technology has gotten film still beats digital for a lot of reasons. You cant push digital per se like you can film. You get degredation in much the same way as film but it looks a lot worse. Compare digital to Medium or large format and the differences are even more apparent. I've also had MUCH better luck pulling out viable prints from improperly exposed (yeah, i've made a few of those... ) shots on film.

I havent noticed black and white photo paper getting any more expensive...has anyone else?

mostly....as much as i enjoy the minor convenience of digital, i'll never embrace it completely because i enjoy gettiing my hands wet... and hey, we all know chicks dig guys who's hands hands smell like fixer...

:ryan</STRONG>

I like the comparison. I just don't see what the extra money, no matter how much, gets you with the E10. I really would like to know. Also do you find Microdrives slower than CF/Mem Sticks? Mem Sticks slower than CF? Factually, I don't even own one of these, but I don't understand this Sony stigma thing. Seems odd.

Quality-wise, digital is just now getting fun (for me). I think an 8x10 (or so) print ability is pretty awesome and legitimizing. I feel as though now I can make worthwhile print sizes. It's not going to rival big film, drum scanned for a while, but It's got its' own uses.
Pushing film is standard for me. I basically only run at "normal" by accident. Low light sensetivity is definitely an area where digital has room to grow. How about a 3200 ASA digital mode with low noise and low abberations? Even just gray scale at this level would be cool.

Silver prices have already adjusted, but not so much from digital. Silver content in emulsions is very low these days.

I swore off darkrooms long ago. My personal experiences w/ chicks who dug fixer were somewhat limited and ultimately unacceptable. But if it's working for you...
Cliff

Oh and I make my living, such that it is, w/ a camera.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: aaanorton ]

[San Acoustic]

Gee. Does digital mean you don't have to scrub the rollers in an Ektamatic machine with a wire brush? Or getting the box of activator mixed up with the box of white wine?

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]