Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cipher13 · Jun 2, 2002, 04:39 AM

Hey all... I know this has been posted before, but hey, technology updates rather quickly.

I'm gonna get a digital still camera... I want one of a very high quality, large resolution, et al, but... well, I can't spend a fortune on it.

The classic problem - the best for the least, really.

I've looked at some Nikons and some Sony's, but wanted other opinions... it will mostly be used outdoors.

Thanks...

Chuck_star · Jun 2, 2002, 03:41 PM

Check this out
<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/CAMDB/compare_cameras.php" target="_blank">http://www.imaging-resource.com/CAMDB/compare_cameras.php</a>

zigzag · Jun 3, 2002, 10:36 AM

I don't have an opinion on "the best for the least", but my experience is that it's as important to consider the ergonomics of a camera as it is to consider the various qualitative tests (which vary anyway according to which review you're reading). After a certain price point, you can be pretty sure that you're going to get high-quality images whether it's a Nikon or a Canon, so I encourage people to get the one that feels best in their hands and has the features they like best. Nothing worse than spending a pile of $$$ on something and finding out that you don't like the way it handles, or that it has an inconvenient recharging system or the like.

Judge_Fire · Jun 3, 2002, 11:49 AM

For reviews and features, also check out <a href="http://www.dpreview.com" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com</a> - their indepth reviews go on page after page and are very, very good.

Can't help you with the price point, tho

J

Timo · Jun 3, 2002, 12:07 PM

I got a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (I see that it's now been superceded...). I had originally been quite impressed with the 990 and 995, so I ramped up to the next grade for my own purchase.

The Nikon is a good camera which delivers -- on occasion -- stunning pictures, but I have two caveats. First, it is a complicated little machine. Now I don't imagine cipher has ever met an operating system he couldn't max out, but I still can get overwhelmed by all of the control options. Second, it has a limited optical zoom (digital zoom is worthless, of course).

However, if you can live without the zoom and especially if you can master its controls, the Nikon is a great camera in a very compact and portable package. The automatic pictures it takes are fantastic, and I often get great shots in low light without a flash. I got the Nikon also because it can focus on objects at a quite close range, and the compact flash format works well with my powerbook.

One last item...I got the shareware program Cameraid, which is terrific for managing photos. Nikon's own mac-based software is terrible, and currently the latest firmware upgrade for the camera can only flash the camera via a Windows rig.

FWIW

funkboy · Jun 3, 2002, 02:30 PM

The Minolta S404. 4 megapixels, 3X optical zoom, 60-second movie mode w/ sound, compactflash.

$499.

I just got it, it's great. Works with iPhoto like a snap.

Does eat batteries, but just make sure to get a good set of rechargeables. I think every digital cam eats thru batteries.

I had never heard of the Minolta until my dad came back from Target of all places and was told about it buy the sales guy there. Read its review at dpreview.com, the guy gives it a "highly recommended." I'm very happy, all except for the batteries, but I had never used a digital cam before this so I never kenw they sucked so much in battery life

tomra · Jun 3, 2002, 05:06 PM

Hi.

One of the really annoying things about "low - end" digital cameras is the "lag" they got when pressing the shutter release button. I`m pressing the release button at a certain point of time because that`s when i want the picture taken....not two seconds later. I believe the Coolpix 5000 is one of the first compact`s which has fixed this ( Timo?), so i would go for the NCP5000. Resolution wise i`m pretty sure they are all good enough if you buy one of the latest models.

I`m using a D1H on a daily basis in my job and it has a very limited res with max at 2000X1320 pixels, but still these files are large enough for beeing used in a lot of comercial fine print folders and such. Pixel dimensions are important and you do of course want as much as possible , but don`t leave out other factors like exposure metering, quality of lens, usability, durability and so forth...

I would say...go for a well proven camera manufactor such as Nikon or Canon. They been making quality photographic equipment for many years and they have been doing it well too!

Anyway....just a few thoughts
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Tom.

zigzag · Jun 3, 2002, 06:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Timo:
One last item...I got the shareware program Cameraid, which is terrific for managing photos. Nikon's own mac-based software is terrible, and currently the latest firmware upgrade for the camera can only flash the camera via a Windows rig.<hr /></blockquote>There was an item about the Nikon firmware issue on Macintouch (or was it MacNN?) last week. One poster indicated that if you scroll further down the Nikon download page, there is some sort of workaround for Macs. Another poster indicated that if you download the firmware update onto a compact flash card, then insert the card into the camera, it will update the camera.

k2man · Jun 7, 2002, 02:38 AM

I'm also looking for a digicamera to sort of get my feet wet, without blowing too much cash. Most people that have tried both the Canon G2 ($750-$800) and the Nikon CP5000 seem to agree that the Canon has a much easier interface, and slightly better ISO to noise ratios. BUT...the CP5000 has 2 things going for it that have me intrigued: 1) it has a much better macro mode for doing close up shots (if you just want a point and shoot camera for friends and trips, this won't matter to you, it's more for 'creative photography'), and 2) its lens goes to 28mm wide (the Canon's is 35mm max) which again comes in handy for some more unique, creative shots.

Anyone else with Coolpix experience?

flatcatch · Jun 8, 2002, 01:16 PM

Cipher - for yet another digital camera site, check out <a href="http://www.dcresource.com" target="_blank">http://www.dcresource.com</a> . Plenty-o-reviews etc, and he maintains an OS X Compatibility list (although I'd think virtually all new cameras should work fine).

Another thing you may want to think about is the storage media (SmartMedia vs. CompactFlash). The per-megabyte price is about the same (except Type II CompactFlash which have absurdly high prices - but also higher capacity). This probably wouldn't be a deal-maker in your decision though, but some people get religious about one or the other.

FWIW I have an Olympus 3040-Z and it's a great camera. I think that historically Nikon and Olympus have been consistently near the top, but in the past couple of years other manufactures have stepped up the pace.

[Edit: Oh yeah, macro shots. This is a lot of fun. My Olympus has macro mode but can't shoot closer than 6" inches or so. When I was shopping for this camera I actually wanted the Nikon Coolpix 995 instead (it had bulb shutter mode, and 1 cm macro distance), but it's form factor is an abomination (IMHO of course, my apologies to Coolpix owners). Anyway, a macro lense for my Olympus evened up the playing field, and from what I hear long exposure with digital cameras will create a ton of noise due to standard CCD issues so I don't know that you could make good use of bulb.]

[ 06-08-2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: flatcatch ]

Jbos · Jun 8, 2002, 08:30 PM

The best lower end digital camera is hands down the Nikon Coolpix 885. You just can't go wrong with this baby. Read the many reviews of it online to see what I mean. It's also reasonably priced at $500.

memento · Jun 8, 2002, 11:51 PM

Great advice here! I agree with most of what's being said. check out <a href="http://www.dpreview.com," target="_blank">www.dpreview.com,</a> <a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com," target="_blank">www.steves-digicams.com,</a> <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com" target="_blank">www.imaging-resource.com</a> and formulate your own opinions. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta (the new models) all have great cameras. Get the features you want. Play with the camera "in person". Do research to form your own opinion of what's a good deal (I don't agree that a $500 Nikon Coolpix 885 is the best low-end camera).

My opinions is that the Canon G2 is an amazing camera. The night shots it takes and the way that the controls work suit me very well. It has a solid feel. The Minolta dImage5 has a super zoom that you use manually - you twist the barrel to zoom rather than use a rocker switch. It's great for very quickly zooming on a far subject (such as a deer in my yard). I've had very poor night pictures from the Minolta. In fact, I could not get a better night shot that I can from my Canon Powershot A50. If you want to get artsy, consider that some cameras may filter out the infrared range. My A50 does not and I have taken some amazing photos in the near-infrared range using a simple filter. Consider that you may want a threaded lens so that you can add filters. Camera speed is something best felt while using the camera.

Cipher13 · Jun 9, 2002, 06:32 AM

Thanks guys... I'll look into it.

I think I'll just take a look at a few 4 megapixel cameras, and simply compare the shots - they're what count.

Thanks again.

Vanquish · Jun 9, 2002, 08:38 AM

I think the Coolpix 995 is very good it's not that expensive anymore (800 euro) since Nikon introduced the Coolpix 5000.

Joshua · Jun 13, 2002, 12:54 PM

If you haven't bought one yet, you might consider the Canon Digital Elph series. You won't get the super-high quality you mentioned, but it has--to me anyway--one huge benefit: you can take it anywhere. I keep mine in my pocket all day, which means it's always there when I want to take a picture.

The other camera I use is a Canon EOS D60, which is great, but you're at the mercy of its size--you're constantly lugging around the a big case for the camera, and the big pile of CF cards you need for high quality images.