 Which Digital Camera Do You Recommend? |  |
 |  |
Posted by Cliff on Saturday April 22, @08:35AMfrom the choosing-the-best-toy dept.
Digital Cameras are becoming the rage these days. It seems that now people are opting for the ease of the CCD and the COMPACTflash card over the trusty 35mm film camera, and why not? Gone are the days of paying to have your film developed at the nearby PhotoHourMart. With a digital camera, a laptop, and a decent printer, you are your own photographer, photolab and even publisher. So what digital camera does the Slashdot Readership recommend? Which one offers the best bang for the buck or has the best features? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions.
< Httpd Written In Postscript? Shell? | Terry Gilliam's Brazil >
| Slashdot Login | | |
| | |
| |
| Related Links | | |
| ||
| |
| This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. |
| Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful) by tedtimmons (slashdot-at-perljam-dot-net) on Saturday April 22, @08:40AM EST (#2) (User Info) http://www.perljam.net/ |
| It's been said for the last 3 years that digital cameras are replacing "film" cameras. I don't think that's happening. Digitals are great for snapshots, web-related stuff, and the like, but most individuals that have a serious interest in photography will own a digital, plus one or more "film" cameras. It seems that the digital camera is an add-on- you don't replace a good camera with a digital, you simply use both. It's amazing how good the quality of old-fashioned film cameras is. The level of control over your subject through aperture, focus, lenses, exposure time, film usage, and more hasn't been duplicated in the digital world. The quality of 35mm has not been matched in the digital space yet, not to mention medium format! |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Informative) by BMIComp on Saturday April 22, @08:46AM EST (#11) (User Info) |
| I somewhat agree with you. For the average consumer, who just wants a simple camera, that works well and doesn't take much to use it, but still wants to be guaranteed good photos, get a normal "film camera". Although, if your willing to invest time and money in a digital camera, that's high enough quality, then i'd say go for it. You'd need a high quality printer and paper too though, which may cost you a lot also. Most people say the benefit of having a digital camera is not having to go to the store to have your pictures processed. Altough, with all the work you have to do, the one hour photo might be easier. Its all a matter of opinoin. "I hate television. I hate it as much as peanuts. But I can't stop eating peanuts." -- Orson Welles |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by Stoutlimb on Saturday April 22, @10:38AM EST (#155) (User Info) |
| "Most people say the benefit of having a digital camera is not having to go to the store to have your pictures processed. Altough, with all the work you have to do, the one hour photo might be easier. Its all a matter of opinoin." I still have a disposable camera left over from my last girlfriend, which I fear taking to the developers, for the simple reason I don't want them staring at me when they hand me my photos back. :o) Trust me, even with the hassle, there are uses for digital cameras!!! -- Do you think Hemmingway would have written so many novels if his typewriter had been capable of Open GL hardware-accelerated 3-D graphics? |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by brianosaurus on Saturday April 22, @01:37PM EST (#268) (User Info) |
| Digital cams are getting to be much less of a hassle. You take your pictures then plug the camera into USB or plug the media into a pccard slot. On Windows it just shows up as another drive, so drag and drop your pics. A lot of web sites now do photo albums and make it easy to put your pics on the web. Yahoo! Photos even has an upload tool that lets you put titles and resize the images as you upload. It is WAY easy now deal with digital pics, and I find I'm using my camera a lot more. I use the small Fuji one.. not sure the model number... |
| Making the investment (Score:2) by TeknoDragon (andross@ghettobox.dhs.org) on Saturday April 22, @01:39PM EST (#270) (User Info) http://technopagan.dhs.org |
| My wife and I started shopping around for a digicam around newyears. We looked for the highest resolution and the greatest flexability. We chose the Olympus C-2500L, an SLR camera that accepts hotshoe flash and a few custom olympus lenses for wide angle and zoom. We haven't had a need for many accessories yet. We found it for $1200 with a 32MB SM card and just recently got a usb SM/CF/ATAPC reader with a 48MB CF for under $200. Now with 80MB we can get 40 1712x1368 images, or 137 1280x1024, or over 600 640x480's. If we ever need physical prints it would be well worth the cost to go to kinkos or the computer labs at school and make some glossy prints. It's not much more expensive than having regular film developed. I think it's much easier to have the option between hundreds of images so that you can pick and choose new ones as you're taking them. A fair processing job is just a few photoshop filters away. (and better compression gets those huge 2.5 gigapixel images down to 275k) The only drawback to having our olympus rather than a semiprofessional film camera is the lack of lens varieties and filling up our hard drives with cat pictures. With a digital camera you're never afraid to take a pic, you can always delete it later or take another if the first isn't perfect. If you're seriously interested in photogrophy I think you'll probably recover the cost of a camera like the 2500 and accessories in film savings. |
| Olympus C-2500L (Score:1) by Alan Jay Weiner on Saturday April 22, @08:03PM EST (#359) (User Info) |
| thanks for posting this - I'm looking at the 2020 and 2500. I've used Olympus Stylus (various models) for years - my original Olympus Stylus Zoom had the best lens I'd ever seen in a "cheap snapshot" camera. Latest is a (Olympus) APS; I like the convenience, but I'd go back to 35mm in an eyeblink... Didn't want to spend the money for a top-quality digital yet, and I couldn't live with a cheapie... A friend just got a great deal on a 2500L - it's biggish for a "toss-around handy snapshot" (for me it's mostly family photos) but much lighter than I expected. I'll probably go the 2020 though... |
| Re:Olympus C-2500L (Score:1) by edwazere on Sunday April 23, @08:44AM EST (#427) (User Info) |
| The 2020 is great, the quality is amazing, it's easy to use and nimh batteries last for ages! I've had mine about two weeks and have no complaints! ed |
| Re:Making the investment (Score:1) by Alex_FireStorm on Sunday April 23, @06:31AM EST (#413) (User Info) http://www.gbone1.force9.co.uk |
| You can use ordinary lenses (for example I'm using a semi-fisheye series Vii lens) on the slr olympus models. The thread on the front of the C1400XL (and C1400L) is 43mm, you can get a stepping ring, from 43 to 46 and 46 to series vii. Okay so im losing a little of the picture round the edges due to vignetting, but can still take some pretty nice fisheye pics with a standard lens. The lens is a cheap semi-fisheye from jessops, and the stepping rings cost no more than a few pounds. Alex http;//www.fire-storm.co.uk |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by demiurge_1 on Saturday April 22, @08:50PM EST (#365) (User Info) |
| Sites that provide user reviews and pricing information: photo.askey.net, steves-digicams.com, megapixel.net, dcresource.com, pcphotreview.com, and imaging-resource.com. Plus at shortcourses.com you can view full text online "How To" manuals (select a camera, buy a camera, take/modify digital pictures, and complete field guides for using particular cameras). Before I give you my 2 cents on gear, I would have to agree that most photo-geeks will go the route of digital AND film (as long as the cash holds out). If you HAVE to choose one, I would go the route of 1)a mid-level digicam (all of the cameras below were top prosumer last year but have been supplanted by the 3.34Gp cameras), 2)watch the discount rack for a photoprinter, and 3)find a website that will host and/or process your prints. I've personally purchased and ab'used' Kodak DC280, Epson PC850Z, and the Olympus 2020Z; plus loaner experience with the Nikon 950. The Kodak is the best point-and-shoot camera in the group and the menus are GUI-driven. Plus it's tied with the Nikon for color saturation. The Epson produced the best outdoor photos, best trigger (lowest shutter lag), and USB download. The Nikon has the best optics and the pictures show it. But IMHO the Olympus wins best in show. As a point-and-shoot it's almost idiot proof, while simultaneously providing user controls that will satisfy many of the film snobs. As for the argument that "some pix can only be achieved with film", the truth is that those pictures require an expensive camera, expensive lens(es), roll(s) of film, plus processing. A good digital camera and adequate understanding of Adobe Photoshop (expensive), PhotoSuite III (cheap), Corel Custom Photo (cheap), or Adobe PhotoDeluxe (usually free)will produce excellent pictures. You can then upload your images for online processing (6x4 for 39 cents each). Ignorance . . . the ultimate American value. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:3, Insightful) by Matts (spam@sergeant.org) on Saturday April 22, @09:05AM EST (#40) (User Info) http://come.to/fastnet |
| I think it's going to be a little more fine grained than that - sort of like how noone now records their home movies onto film - the magnetic storage methods are cheaper and simpler... However, there is always a class of people (i.e. professionals) who will always need _real_ film. I think the same will happen with digital cameras. The old fashioned point and shoot cameras will simply all but disappear, and we'll be left with a choice of digital cameras or high end SLR cameras that professionals (or hobbyists) use. I think there will also be an option to have your digital COMPACTflash card processed at the chemists into glossies. OK, back on topic... I think there's something still to be said for the Sony Mavica. While floppy's don't hold all that many high quality pictures, there's something to be said if you're on holiday and you fill up your disk - you can just buy a new pack of ten floppys! Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit. |
| Floppies (Score:3, Interesting) by fwr (fwr@ga.prestige.net) on Saturday April 22, @09:22AM EST (#74) (User Info) |
| Nah. I think the Mavica sucks, and instead bought a Kodak DC290 for around $740 (and I'm grateful that the price hasn't dropped drastically since I made the purchase). Think of this: |
| Re:Floppies (Score:2) by Matts (spam@sergeant.org) on Saturday April 22, @12:02PM EST (#212) (User Info) http://come.to/fastnet |
| For starters, I don't think "most" computer professionals are equipped with a laptop by their employer. Certainly not developers. Maybe account managers, or tech support. Secondly - I really really think its pretty sad if you take your laptop on holiday with you... Man - YOU'RE ON HOLIDAY!!! I don't even take my palm pilot on holiday with me. Finally - pretty much only if you go on holiday within your own country are you going to find identical plug sockets and voltages (e.g. England is on 240V, Europe is on 220V, and the US/Canada are on 110V). I'd rather go somewhere exotic that I can't plug anything into. However if I went somewhere exotic I probably couldn't get floppys for the Mavica either ;-) (yes, I know all about voltage adaptors, etc. The bigger point was about "Leave it at home!"). Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit. |
| Re:Floppies (Score:1) by Paul Komarek (komarek@andrew.cmu.edu) on Saturday April 22, @01:42PM EST (#271) (User Info) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~komarek |
| When in Kauaii, I just looked for a local copy shop that would let me install the drivers for my camera on one of their computers. Found one, no problem. I had brought a zip disk with me, and the shop of course had zip drives available. Worked out fine. I wouldn't bother asking at Kinkos, though. Look for something independent. -Paul |
| Re:Floppies (Score:1) by aallan (aa@astro.keele.ac.uk) on Saturday April 22, @04:02PM EST (#308) (User Info) http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/~aa/ |
| England is on 240V, Europe is on 220V, and the US/Canada are on 110V Actually the UK (there is more than just England here you know) is now on 220V and has been for a good five years or more. Al.-- Non ex transverso sed deorsum |
| Re:DC290 (was Floppies) (Score:1) by drongo on Sunday April 23, @12:38AM EST (#387) (User Info) |
| I have had a dc290 for around 6 months now and have largely been disapointed with it. It is a large and heavy camera, and the batteries last approximately no time at all. Not all countries get the accessories you get in the US. A DC290 purchased in Hong Kong does not have charger, rechargeable batteries, pcmcia reader or power adapter. It did have a serial cable which was unusable for 5 months as the release date for the software that supported it got pushed back with no explanantion on the website. A request to the kodak's email elicited no response at all for two months, then a reply came when the software was released. Now I am using windows 2000 and linux, since NT4 decided to stop functioning ion this laptop, and I needed to buy a pcmcia adapter to get pictures down, as the slow serial connection no longer works. I have also suffered two corrupt flash cards, meaning may pictures have been lost, and since the last firmware upgrade, I seem to have to wait much longer between taking pictues. On the last point point, while sad it is sometimes true. I work in the internet field, and this laptop is away with me while I am at holidays at the moment. One of the main reasons is so that I can upload pictures to it, as well as to play CD's and DVD's. |
| Re:DC290 (was Floppies) (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @12:49AM EST (#389) (User Info) |
| Well, first of all, you don't use alkalines with any digital camera - they will eat it up like they were candies. NiMH batteries are very highly recommended. As for the different accessories included - the US package does not include a serial cable (you have to request for that) unlike the European version. It does include batteries and charger, though. I bet that the HK package is far cheaper than the US and European versions. Oh, there is no power cable in the US and European packages as well. It is available as an option. The Serial Connectivity Kit for Win95 and NT was a major issue but was already resolved. That being said, you should have used the USB connection with your Linux setup - provided that you have USB, of course. Corrupt CF cards are usually caused by insufficient power, taking the cards out whilst the LED lights (CF slot) are blinking and problems with the card itself. I have been using a Sandisk CF card along with the Kodak (made by Sandisk) Picture Cards with my 260 and now with my 290 without any problems. Other brands do exhibit some problems, though - but not Sandisk or Lexar. AS for longer picture taking, I don't see why it takes longer - perhaps it is because of the CF cards that you are having problems with. Have you tried using other cards? With DigitaPost, you will no longer have to bring your laptop with you - that is, of course, if you have enough money to pay for the mobile phone link to transfer your photos. =) Cheers! |
| Re:Floppies (Score:1) by sherms on Sunday April 23, @02:38AM EST (#410) (User Info) |
| The mavica FD-91 Does NOT suck. I have worked and owned Olympus digitals, Sony, and Kodak. If used in the proper setting the mavica does very well. It has great battery life, has been dependable for over 5000+ photos so far (alot I attribute to floppies). Yes it is NOT a high end camera, but it gives you many manual features photographers like. The Olympus and the Nikon are outstanding in there photos, if you want to shoot alot of photos, youd better get mass storage. As for the Kodak. I have been very disapointed in there quality and the batter life really sucks (useing both alkaline and nicads). As far as general every day use I like the Sony FD-91 ( I have all three brands at my disposal) and use the Sony all of the time. I shoot many photos in a day. |
| Re:Floppies (Score:1) by kensanders on Monday April 24, @02:19PM EST (#454) (User Info) |
| No way. Took a Mavica to China. Bought 50 floppies for $5. Took up to 300 stills or 60 1 minute movies each and every day. Downloaded onto a lap top hard drive every night. Fair pictures. Fair movies with sound. Good enough for a cheap camera and a pleasure trip. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by war2k1 on Saturday April 22, @11:12AM EST (#185) (User Info) http://gezick.node41.com |
| So far as the state of the digital goes, I'm not quite sure that I agree with you. I am a photographer and I work in the entertainment industry. There are decent digital cameras available, with all the control of "real" cameras and with most of the quality. The only drawback is the amount of money that they cost. For a decent still camera (kodak makes one based on the top of the line canon) you are looking at between 7 and 10 thousand dollars. And for a decent digital motion picture camera, well, you have to be George Lucas ;-)... But I definately think that it is concievable that in a few (10) years that we will start to see the disapearance of film and the appearance of high quality digital alternatives, for about the same price as their celluoid cousins. Personally, I can't wait! But if you are looking for an awesome digital camera (still) definately check out the top of the line Kodak camera one built on the Ni kon F5 and one built on the Canon Eos 1N, also, polaroid makes a cool one, but my personal fave is the Leica Studio Digital camera. Ohhh, I want one :) |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by MrBogus on Saturday April 22, @12:07PM EST (#216) (User Info) |
| Yeah, but think of consumer space where people have historically taken pictures with crappy 110 or Disc cameras or even those plastic boxes you buy at the supermarket. Video tape has already eradicated film for pretty much everything non-'pro', I would expect digital still cameras to do the same. Most people are happy even with a 72dpi image on a web page or TV set. Still, where resolution matters (like HDTV), you are going to have trouble replacing film. Kodak is running a bunch of advertisments driving this point home in video magazines. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by IAmSancho on Saturday April 22, @01:35PM EST (#265) (User Info) |
| ...there is always a class of people (i.e. professionals) who will always need _real_ film. While some may not consider photojournalists "real" professionals, that is where I see professionals going completely to digital. I was visiting family a couple of summers ago un rural Dawson, Minnesota (a town of about 1000). Their newspaper photographer used a digital camera because it's cheaper and faster than film. But, also big city newspapers use digital now. The National Press Photographers Association's journal that features winning photographs from newspapers around the nation has more ads for digital cameras than film ones, and quite a few of the winning photojournalists take their photos with high-end digital cameras; and the pictures look very good. Some people here have said that an advantage film SLRs have over digital cameras is all of the f-stop, focus, etc. options available.... but it's not hard to put that into digital cameras. I also seem to remember a company that was developing a device that can be put in any 35mm SLR (any 35mm for that matter) that's just a CCD and a roll that fits inside the film compartment. Digital will be king for photography sooner than we may think, and film will be deprecated eventually. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2) by voop on Saturday April 22, @06:41PM EST (#338) (User Info) |
| ...there is always a class of people (i.e. professionals) who will always need _real_ film. While some may not consider photojournalists "real" professionals, that is where I see professionals going completely to digital. For photo journalists, it makes good sense with digital cameras: short processing time is important, pictures are anyhow uses in "low quality" (i.e. rasterized grossly) and the main layout work is done electronically anyways. Hence in that field it is "speed over quality" any day. I don't even dare to think about what the Nikon/Kodak-D1 costs (without any lenses), while The best camera in the world is well within reach of the serious amateurs and pros, as are lenses and other acessories. Most digital cameras do a decent job as replacement for compact cameras / APS-cameras, but they do mostly aim for the auto-focus, auto-everything situations - and are ill equiped for most anything else (very few have manual focus / exposure in a way that is easy to use, very few offer spot metering etc). Yes, I am a dedicated Zuikoholic and swear to manual focus and such. However should I go out and buy a digital camera, the one which comes closest to what I expect from a camera would be Olympus C3030 zoom. I would not replace any 35mm film camera with thatone, but it is imho the "least bad" of the affordable digital cameras. It has no good manual focus facilities, but it does feature spot metering and manual as well as auto exposure. -- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..." |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2) by gargle on Saturday April 22, @04:13PM EST (#312) (User Info) |
| I think there will also be an option to have your digital COMPACTflash card processed at the chemists into glossies There already are such services. e.g. see www.ophoto.com. I've seen some ophoto developed pictures, taken with fairly high end digital cameras, and the result is indistinguishable (or better than) traditional film. It's only a matter of time before digital cameras replace traditional cameras for almost all applications. ==== R.Malda: "The end of the internet economic boom is ... offtopic and uninteresting." |
| Mavica Sucks! (Score:1) by mTor on Saturday April 22, @04:54PM EST (#324) (User Info) http://www.groundandpound.com |
| Mavica SUCKS bad! I had it for 3 weeks... Picture quality is pisspoor and you can only store several pictures at high quality. Go for Kodak DC290 or DC275 instead. MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Anything that has flashcards is MUCH better -- GroundAndPound.com News and info for martial artists of all styles. |
| Re:Mavica Sucks! (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @12:55AM EST (#391) (User Info) |
| Just a correction - there is no Kodak DC275. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PsiPsiStar (wiserd@angelfire.com) on Sunday April 23, @01:48AM EST (#406) (User Info) http://www.angelfire.com/oh/wiserd/ |
| Having used a Mavica myself, I agree that its awsome. Seems like most reviews tend to denigrate it. I guess the thing just evokes strong emotions. But besides the convenience of using floppy disks, you also don't have to go through the software hassle that most other cameras put you through. Simplicty is a definite advantage, and the movie option is cool. Personally, though, I'm waiting till they develop a digital camera that accepts zip disks. Anyone know if such a beast exists? ______________________________________________________________ History is a selective interpertation of events intended to justify those currently in power. |
| Floppies are NOT Pilbara Compatible (Score:1) by leonbrooks on Monday April 24, @05:33AM EST (#450) (User Info) http://users.smileys.net/~leonb/ |
| A Mavica with an LS-120 would store a useful number of hi-res pictures, but it would still die in short order if used in the Australian outback at all. Solid state storage is an absolute must where the dreaded red dust proliferates. --- If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Interesting) by Betcour on Saturday April 22, @09:08AM EST (#47) (User Info) |
| I quite don't agree : - Last year digicams were already over 5% of all cameras sold ! Must be ever higher today. So it IS taking over regular camera, slowly but surely - 3,3 megapixels digicam are available and make great pictures, once we get to 5 or 6 megapixel (in 2 or 3 years probably) it will be hard to sell 35 mm. - Many digicam manufacturer use "analog" camera bodies and lenses too. Also having everything digitall makes some functions more easy to do on digicam rather than on 35mm, and many standard digital camera have functions you can only find on very expensive regular cameras - digicam are so convenient that it has really the power to kill analog cameras. It is not just digital, it makes the way we take pictures really different and better. No need to wait to see the results, no need to pay for your pics (which means you can make more pictures and just keep the good ones instead of having one or two shots and pay thru the nose for pictures that are bad). To me it is only a matter of 5 to 10 years to kill the analog cameras. There's no way back ! |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Insightful) by tedtimmons (slashdot-at-perljam-dot-net) on Saturday April 22, @09:14AM EST (#57) (User Info) http://www.perljam.net/ |
| You've got some good points. Of course, I'm willing to bet that Polaroid cameras are more than 5% of the cameras sold, and nobody expects them to take over anytime soon :-) You do have some good points aout paying for the pics, getting the new digital functions, and more. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Interesting) by jcampbell on Saturday April 22, @10:30AM EST (#149) (User Info) http://www.jcampbell.net/ |
| I disagree to your disagreement, this is quite like the whole "Will the web destroy print" argument. Neither will destroy or negate the other. Digital cameras will never be able to produce the same results that regular cameras do with such things as overexposure (ever seen those night-time pictures of cities where the cars are just big red and white lines) and photography hase a history about it. If anything, I think the consumer market will buy digitals over normal cams, but for the professional -- there is nothing like the original. Maybe analogs will become obsolete (sp?) over the course of time, but with that process, many of the smaller things will be lost. Negatives have varying resolutions, you can blow-up or reduce them with little or no detail problems, whereas digital images can only be reduced in size. You can re-print negatives any time you'd like, have it developed poster sized or wallet sized, with a digital camera its just that single source image. Sure photoshop (which I am an expert in) has become the digital darkroom, but I would trust and respect my oldie cam more than my digital. Just my $0.02. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by jmalicki on Saturday April 22, @11:24AM EST (#196) (User Info) |
| What? Overexposure can't be done with digital cameras? I beg to differ... mine can handle it. It's not quite the exact same thing, but the CCD keeps taking image data and it simulates overexposure quite happily. And if you think negatives have no problems with resolution you have never messed with photography that much IMO. Graininess can get pretty bad. Analog and digital differ in that respect only in that Analog cameras currently happen to have higher resolution. There is nothing magical that says that just because its analog it can be blown up. Of course, it may be slightly less noticable, but that doesn't mean you can't make the pixel borders fuzzy in digital images either. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @11:47AM EST (#207) |
| I do time lapse exposures all the time with my $300 point and click cannon digital camera. And professionals are flocking to the likes of the Nikon D1 and better cameras. Journalists are leading the crowd, as the instant turnaround of digital is a powerful enabler for them. A recent snowboarding event was shot by photographers boarding down the slopes with nikon D1's. They each had a laptop running out of their backpack, using radio ethernet to continously send pictures down to a base station that was putting them up on the web instantly. That's an ability film can *never* match. Now having my 1st digital camera, I will almost certainly never go back. Digital cameras give the instant gratification of polaroid, but without it costing $1 per picture and with much better quality. Polaroid cameras have been reasonibly successful over the years, and I suspect digital will be as well as they get cheaper. Using CMOS sensors enables single chip cameras. As CMOS technology continues to develope, it's reasonable to envision fixed focus disposable digital cameras as cheap as those cardboard film ones. Except that they won't need to be disposable, because you can always clear the memory. Don't laugh... remember that these days you can get microcontrollers from RadioShack for $1 each... not hard to see that in the near future, we'll have $10 (without flash storage) digital cameras. This thread isn't supposed to be about wheither digital technology is flawed vs film... it's a stupid argument, digital is becoming a de facto presence. This thread is supposed to be about cammer reccomendations: I reccomend any of the Cannon powershot line. I personally have a Powershot A50. The resolution and quality of this 1.3mpixel unit suffers in comparison to the latest 2.5+ units, but it is dirt cheap. Combine that with a rugged aluminum body, 2x zoom, panarama and continous fire modes, and you get a lot of value. If you have more $$ to spend, the newer S10 or S20 produce very nice images at very high resolution, while still perserving the tiny all metal camera body... perfect to drop into a pants pocket and go. My only complaint so far is that you'll want a case for it: the mode selector dial can get turned 'on' while the camera is in your pants pocket, wasteing battery charge and opening the lense up to damange. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by Inferno73 on Saturday April 22, @09:53PM EST (#373) (User Info) |
| do some research - my nikon coolpix 950 does overexposure beatifully, and beats most film cameras in that i have never needed the flash. it adjusts the brightness itself, and if you know how to use it, it looks much better than a flash. |
| Prints from Digital and Film (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:06AM EST (#394) (User Info) |
| I disagree. Digital photography is fast improving and catching up to the traditional film photography. The current crop of professional digital cameras such as the Kodak DCS series, Nikon D1, Fuji S1, Minolta Rd3000, etc., all use the same lenses as the film cameras. It is just that they use a different media for storage. As for overexposures - the Kodak DC290 can do as long as 16 seconds long time exposure with little noise. You can produce images from 2.5x3 to 4x6 to as large as you want. Of course, digital images, as you have stated, lose its quality if enlarged. However, 3.3M pixel prosumer cameras can produce prints up to 11x14 without any trace of pixels. You can use software, such as Genuine Fractals, to boost it further with little or no quality degradation. Problem with negatives, the more you produce prints, the more the quality of the negative degrades due to exposure to the chemicals. With digital, the first one almost always looks like the next hundred copies. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Insightful) by Leto2 (ivo at ivo dot nu) on Saturday April 22, @10:39AM EST (#156) (User Info) http://ivo.nu/ |
| I fail to see why anything over 1.3 Megapixels would increase the probabities of taking over 35mm. 1280x960 (1.3Mpixels) already fills my screen completely. And on the HP Color Laser 4500 I get pretty nice printouts on the printer's highest resolution. Fact is: You CANNOT print pictures made with a digital camera, at this moment. Regardless the quality of your camera, you need a printer to print those pics, and to get to photoquality, those printers are unaffordable (if they exist, that is) I own a Canon A50, I would recommend it, after extensive research I found this one had the most bang for the buck, especially considering my high priority in size, it's really small. I use it for normal photography, put the pics on the web, so all my friends can see them too. Good enough for me. Ivo |
| I don't agree (Score:1) by dragonfly_blue (markbeihoffer@moc.liamtoh) on Saturday April 22, @11:00AM EST (#175) (User Info) http://www.dragonflydynamix.com |
| It's been my experience that it is the quality of the digital cameras that is lagging behind the quality of the printers. Have you seen what a modern Epson or HP color printer output looks like, when the print is done on photo quality paper from a scanned (not digital camera) picture? I guess not, because I worked in a photo lab for five years, and the quality is indistinguishable from that of an 8 X 10 real honest-to-goodness chemical process photo lab print. My HP 722c has gorgeous photo quality output, but not when I print from a digital camera... Now, the lifespan of said prints is a different story...*sigh*
|
| Re:I don't agree (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @12:04PM EST (#213) |
| A few points: - companies like shutterfly.com will make prints on photo paper from your digital pics - I'm waiting for my first order. - the newer 1 hour processing machines will have the ability to print from your SmartMedia / CompactFlash cards at Wal Mart or wherever. If you want in depth reviews check out dpreview.com |
| You're right, but.... (Score:1) by dragonfly_blue (markbeihoffer@moc.liamtoh) on Saturday April 22, @10:08PM EST (#377) (User Info) http://www.dragonflydynamix.com |
| Of course, no reasonably priced digital setup can come close to what you can get out of a *nice* (and by nice I mean comparable $$$) SLR, if you get the film developed at a pro studio with a good chemical development process. For those of us with limited camera experience, however, who would normally bring our film to Ritz Camera or Walgreens or 1-Hour Photos 'r Us, the output from many color printers these days rivals what we've grown to expect from normal, everyday 8X10s from normal, everyday 35mm cameras. That's all I was trying to say in my first comment. I can't take professional pictures. No matter *how* much money I spend on a camera or film, I am just never going to be a great photographer, because I don't have the time, patience, natural gift, or years experience. (By the way, that's supposed to be a compliment to anyone who actually does know photography. Good work! =P) However, I can learn to use a digital camera in a couple hours, and if I can import a picture into my computer I can usually get the Gimp or Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or Onlinephotolab.com to turn it into something better than I ever could have done with a film camera, Zebra or not. =P And my printer, well, it does that type of work justice. And then some. |
| Re:I don't agree (Score:2) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:00AM EST (#415) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| What the FUCK is a 'zebrachrome?' I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a witty reference to Art Wolfe's exploits in photoshop. Really quite funny. On the other hand, you might be referring to ilfochrome prints, previously known as cibachromes or just cibas. Nothing beats a ciba for quality and long term stability (except maybe some BW stuff). It'll outlast your slides. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Re:I don't agree (Score:1) by dragonfly_blue (markbeihoffer@moc.liamtoh) on Monday April 24, @11:26PM EST (#456) (User Info) http://www.dragonflydynamix.com |
| I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.... I figured it was a photographer inside-joke.
|
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2) by noom on Saturday April 22, @12:38PM EST (#237) (User Info) |
| Who cares if 1.3MPixels already fills your screen completely? What if you want to crop a portion of the image and enlarge it? What about making posters or banners? If you try and enlarge a photo taken with a digital camera to poster size, it's going to look like crap. The lack of resolution is also a problem for post processing -- applying 'filters' (the Gimp/Photoship kind, not the 55mm things) to the image degrades the quality of the image each time they are applied (it emphasizes aliasing in the im age). By the way, you CAN print pictures made with a digital camera -- most photolabs will print it for you with a high-quality (iow, unaffordable) printer. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by srussell (ser-nospam@efn.org) on Saturday April 22, @12:45PM EST (#239) (User Info) http://www.germane-software.com/~ser |
| Higher resolution would definately increase saleability. For example, I'm a very amature photographer. In this respect, I'd say I'm similar to about 30 percent of the camera owners on the planet, the rest are either professional or advanced amatures, or don't use their cameras for more than memorabilia photographs. What I do do is take a lot of really bad pictures; every once in a great while, though, one will turn out really well -- something I'd consider marketable, it is so good. When this happens, I want to be able to blow it up to a 14" or so print and maybe frame and hang it. The problem is that the digital camera I have is great for snapshots, but if I happen to ever take that one special picture with it, I won't be able to blow it up. I don't think that the niche I'm in is that small. I'm sure there are a very many people out there who are like me. A decent resolution digital camera, one that will let me have a photo printed at a larger size with no noticeable pixelization would be a godsend. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2) by drix on Saturday April 22, @12:49PM EST (#242) (User Info) |
| I fail to see why anything over 1.3 Megapixels would increase the probabities of taking over 35mm. Filling your screen is a pretty abstract benchmark of performance considering it's totally dependent on your screen resolution, and it says nothing of clarity, color balance, etc. Also, for serious 35mm users, 1.3Mpixels is not even close to sufficient. It just doesn't work for cropping small areas of the picture; I know, I've tried. I work for a small newspaper and we bought an Olympus digital camera of that resolution. It's nice and fast and all, but you just can't do tight crops on it. The detail is noticeably substandard w/r/t 35mm, even after printing on newspaper. True, really high-res digital cameras are out there, but they cost about $40,000. I have seen reporters from larger papers like the LA times using these and I'm told they work great. However, it's cheaper and easier just to scan a slide at 4000dpi and really pull even the most minute details out of a frame. In their current state, cheap digital cameras simply cannot match that. That's why they have a long way to go to beat 35mm. -- Slade. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by Betcour on Saturday April 22, @01:56PM EST (#274) (User Info) |
| Who needs a printer ? You have very good online digital picture printing that are cheap : - upload your pics - pay with your card - get your pictures in the mailbox 3 days later, on neat paper for less than 40 cents/print With time these shops are going to get cheaper and better. The convenience of digital cams + the convenience of online pictures processing = killer app. No need to go to the photo shop anymore :-) |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:12AM EST (#395) (User Info) |
| Oh yes you CAN print pictures from digital photographs without buying those expensive printers (and they do exists -- dye sub printers come from US$300 to US$8000!). Try the Canon CD-300 4x6 photo printer and you will see what I mean. OR you can simply go to photoprinting sites such as ofoto.com, shutterfly.com, photoaccess.com, even Yahoo! Photos offer prints at around US$0.50 for a 4x6 print. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by srussell (ser-nospam@efn.org) on Saturday April 22, @12:36PM EST (#234) (User Info) http://www.germane-software.com/~ser |
| I really want one of the 3.3 megapixels; the CoolPix looks good. I have an older 900, and my only real complaint is that it takes forever to cycle, and even longer to turn on. What with the battery drain, this is a terrible combination of "features". It should have a standby mode that it goes into rather than turning off after the timeout period. In any case, I'm not buying a newer camera until I can find one that has decent resolution and a fast cycle period. Has anybody bought a 2Mp or greater camera with a reasonably small amount of cycle time between photos? |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by Betcour on Saturday April 22, @02:01PM EST (#276) (User Info) |
| "Modern" digicams all have cache memory to shorten cycle time. At highest res my Powershot S20 (3.3 megapixel) can take 4 pics in a row with about 1 to 2 seconds between each pics. My Coolpix 950 had also some buffering (don't remember the size). Ever since I sold my first camera (a DC260 from Kodak) I never had to wait between pictures (4 pics buffer is more than enough for most usage) |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:18AM EST (#396) (User Info) |
| Current crop of digital cameras have large buffers to accommodate at least 3-4 highest resolution photos before pausing to save the images to the CF card. Heck, the Nikon D1, one of the best digital cameras available, takes time to save when in single shot mode. The Kodak DC260 is a turtle compared to the 265 and 290 and other cameras. |
| 5-6 megapixel cameras by middle 2001 (Score:2) by RayChuang (raychuang00.treet@nospam.yahoo.com) on Sunday April 23, @09:01AM EST (#428) (User Info) |
| Personally, at the rate things are improving on digital cameras, the days of 35 mm print film could begin its fast wane as early as the middle of 2001. There are three reasons for this: 1. CCD manufacturers are already starting to develop CCD sensors with 5-6 megapixels. That is almost the same as ISO 100 35 mm print film. I expect to see the first consumer cameras with 5-6 megapixel CCD's by the middle of 2001. 2. Digital cameras are now increasingly designed so it could use IBM's very tiny "MicroDrive" hard drive. That means by the middle of 2001 digital cameras will have as much as 700 MB of storage space for digital images. And don't forget that Compact Flash memory are also increasing in size, too; 256 MB Compact Flash cards might be common by the middle of 2001. 3. Inkjet printers have improved dramatically in the way they print color in the last 24 months. Today's better Canon, Epson, and HP inkjet printers can print high-resolution color pictures with 1200x700 dots/inch and higher resolutions, which makes them pretty much indistinguishable from color prints you get from most photo processors. In fact, I see 35 mm cameras increasingly sold only to people that use very high resolution print film (ISO 25, 50 and 64) or slide film. Most everyone else by 2005 that would normally use 35 mm print film will have switched to digital cameras. Mind you, for larger formats such as 6 x 4.5 and 6 x 7, they will continue to be around because they offer the extremely high resolution necessary for advertising and museum-quality art work. Raymond in Mountain View, CA |
| Offtopic??? (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @09:09AM EST (#48) |
| Hi. Nobody is saying that digital is ready to replace 35mm. Yet. In the mean time, what part of "Which DIGITAL camera do you recommend?" is giving you the most difficulty? Dang.... and you got a THREE?????? Just goes to show how deep the moderators have to dig to find something to actually score UP these days. |
| The times are different now! (Score:1) by kbahey (khalid.at.baheyeldin.dot.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:29AM EST (#82) (User Info) http://khalid.baheyeldin.com |
Sorry, but the newer pro-sumer digital cameras (e.g. Nikon CoolPix 990 and Sony DSC-F505) are very advanced and flexible in terms of exposure control, and all the things you talk about. Also the web is much more prevalent these days than 3 years ago. I used to own high end 35mm SLRs, and enjoyed it (I used to own a "pro" Nikon F2A, then a Minolta Maxxum), and I am thinking of doing only digital now. There are no processing cost, no time to wait, can retouche and manipulate as much as I like, can e-mail/publish on web, ...etc. Maybe they will not totally replace file now, but they will eventually (soon!) |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by rhinojo (rhinojo1@netscape.net) on Saturday April 22, @09:45AM EST (#94) (User Info) |
| I agree with the idea that the traditional camera is not dead, however due to the convenience of the digital camera, its end may be near. Its true enough that some artists and professional photographers will still stick to traditional media, therefore the traditional film camera may still have its place. However, with conventional photographers becoming more and more depended on manipulating their images they might as well go digital. Although, you may not get the urge to take your nice $400 Mavica into the mosh pit; there is no way in hell I'm gonna take a $700 Olympus w/ its wide-angle lens. So disposable cameras may still be around to pollute whatever little of the environment we have left. Is it the medium? It matters whether you shell out a couple of bucks for a memory stick / compact HD, or a couple cents for a floppy. If you buy a good camera you're gonna get some decent pictures, regardless if you're not Mr. Adams... Even now with those big budget filmmakers who can afford to go all digital for the next film, traditional skills will still be needed. As digital cameras get more and more sophisticated we all assume we'll remember the point and shoot method. I'm not sure if film will ever die out. It may end up being like tape cassettes, BETA tapes. It may even resurrect itself to a collector’s item like Atari, or may just become something old and archaic that only art hobbyist will enjoy and marvel at... There is more to this, i'm sure... |
| Level of Control... (Score:1) by Night Stalker on Saturday April 22, @09:47AM EST (#96) (User Info) |
| HAS been duplicated in the digital world. Go check out some of the stuff Nikon has released. With the more advanced coolpix series, you can control ALL of those things INCLUDING lenses. There are also digital cameras that are shaped and look almost identical to SLR 35mm's that you are talking about in your post. In all of those you can change the lenses and adjust aperture, focus, exposure time etc. And with the camera I have (Nikon Coolpix 950) I have a 48 mb compact flash card that holds up to 120 VERY high quality pictures. Now I to am a photography buff (have 3 35mm SLR cameras myself) and for many years I have loved my 35mm SLR cameras. If you're going to use pictures for production reasons, film is DEFINATLY the way to go. But if you're going to have them for family reasons etc. I feel digital is the way to go. You can simply take your pictures, transfer them either through floppy, cable (USB, Serial), etc., then send them to your entire family via email. For those that want hard copies that won't last nearly as long, there are photo printers, sure they cost an arm and a leg, but the quality is very good, I should know my friend is a professional photographer for many large companies in DC (TRW, Raytheon, Washington Metro Transit Services, etc) and THEY use digital cameras. Digital photography technology is only getting better, and I can see it some day going beyond the film world. |
| This is off topic... (Score:3, Interesting) by Anonymous Shepherd (louisjr@cco.caltech.edu) on Saturday April 22, @10:10AM EST (#125) (User Info) http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~louisjr |
Not to troll or cause flamage, but it really doesn't help the /. reader trying to buy a digital camera; it's interesting, yes, insightful, yes, but also not very useful when one wants to find out about:
Stuff like that. For example, I've heard from a store that Kodak cameras aren't very well supported from Kodak; a multitiude of Slashdot readers exclaim the praises of their cameras, however. Then there's Epson's PhotoPC650, and excellent looking camera. HP isn't a great camera, despite their good printers and scanners. Does Epson stack up? Casio's QV2000+ seems a great idea, packing an IBM microDrive. At least, it seems those are more what the questions was asking for; referrals, recommendations, etc. |
| Re:This is off topic... (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:33AM EST (#400) (User Info) |
| I don't know who you talked to regarding Kodak cameras but I have not had any bad experiences with their Tech Support. In choosing a camera, you need to plot your requirements first before you check the available cameras. Do you need to take action shots? Do you need to take long time exposures or time-lapse photographs? Do you need external flash option? Lens attachments? Etc. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2) by roman_mir on Saturday April 22, @10:14AM EST (#128) (User Info) |
| This maybe true if you are speaking about photocameras, however if we compared analog video cameras to digital video cameras then you wouldn't be able to say the same thing. Digital Video Cameras have progressed way beyond the capabilities of analog camrecorders. They can do hundreds of scan lines more than analog and their output looks much better (especially on digital HDTV.) I think that digital photo-cameras have gone the wrong direction. Instead of trying to use CCD's directly (like some sort of a digital telescope) they should have some analog receiver to produce a negative from which a good scan could be made. My flatbed scanner makes amazing scans. Directly using CCD requires very very small digital receivers and they produce either square or hexagonal pixels. Instead they should use some sort of a polaroid film inside the camera that can be reused for new pictures, so once you take a shot, this analog film captures the light, and a scan is performed instantly. Then the film is reset with some electric charge. (I just came up with this, so if you find something wrong with this approach, don't scream too much.) (I would like to insert a picture with thousands of hands holding burning candlesticks and lighters right here...) |
| Can't let it happen yet (Score:1) by Snaller on Saturday April 22, @10:14AM EST (#129) (User Info) |
| It's been said for the last 3 years that digital cameras are replacing "film" cameras. I don't think that's happening. Oh no, we can't let it happen yet - think about all the precious resources that go into the making of celluloid! Must waste them all first before we change *G* -- "I don't have a life; I have a program." - The Doctor (no the other one!) |
| Re:Can't let it happen yet (definition of troll) (Score:1) by Vektor C on Saturday April 22, @07:43PM EST (#349) (User Info) |
Oh no, we can't let it happen yet - think about all the precious resources that go into the making of celluloid! Must waste them all first before we change *G* Now this IS a troll, by any and all means. |
| Move along here, nothing to see, move along (Score:1) by Snaller on Friday April 28, @04:49PM EST (#459) (User Info) |
| Now this IS a troll, by any and all means. No, it's a humorous remark. -- "I don't have a life; I have a program." - The Doctor (no the other one!) |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:4, Interesting) by ctj2 (cjohnson camelot com) on Saturday April 22, @10:24AM EST (#141) (User Info) http://www.camelot.com/~cjohnson |
I am a ProAm photographer and lust after a good digital camera. The problem is one of what makes a digital camera "good"? The criteria that are commonly used seem to be:
I have one lens for my 35mm that I payed almost 1K for. If you look at lenses for 35mm cameras you'll find the prices range from a few hundred dollars to many thousands of dollars. It is hard to look at a camera that costs less than $300.00 and even consider the lens to be reasonable. Each person judges their needs and makes a decision based on those needs. My brother wanted "webshots." For him a Sony which compresses everything like mad and has 640x480 sizing is just fine. For me it doesn't come close. My friend wanted a digital and used 3 before he picked his favorite. He choose the Nikon CoolPix 950. (The current Nikon is 990). For him quality was the name of the game. The size had to be 1280x1024 or larger. The compression had to allow for NO compression. I.e A raw TIFF file. And the "Hi Quality" setting is only 4:1 compression JPEG. Very usable. The other day I took some pictures of a personal event. I ended up with about 16 pictures, all of them head shots. After the film was developped and I had scanned them for the web it turned out that we wanted some close ups of an earing. With just the original scan I was able to do a close up of the earing without upscaling or generating any data that was not already there. And my film scanner isn't the best there is. It only does 30bits of 2000+ by 3000+ pixels. So to determine what the "best" digital camera is requires a good understanding of what the user wants to do and how they plan to use their images. If you want to be able to just move floppy disks with "Webshots" from your camera to your computer for uploading, pick a Sony digital camera. If you want higher resolution, you need something like the CoolPix 950 from Nikon. Or if you want the real thing you can pick up a Kodak DCS660 for only $20,000.00. That actually does 2k by 3K with 36 bits. Pick what works for you, just take the list there at the top and rank those things that are important for you. "Webshots" or "Artprint" it makes a difference as to what camera features you need. Chris |
| Consider Archival Issues (Score:2) by sphealey on Saturday April 22, @10:25AM EST (#143) (User Info) |
| Personally, I go back and forth on whether or not digital cameras will replace film. However, one thing to keep in mind is the issue of archival (long term) quality. My wife has in her possession prints and glass negatives of her family from the post-Civil War period. Those negatives are 120 years old and can still be printed in today's darkrooms (with a little duct tape on the carrier). OTOH, I have 160k floppy disks from 1983 that I can't read on any PC I can reasonably find today, which is probably OK because the file formats aren't usable by any software on the market either. Something to think about if you want your pictures to last a _long_ time. sPh |
| Re:Consider Archival Issues (Score:2) by Kris_J (news1@krisjohn.net) on Saturday April 22, @06:42PM EST (#339) (User Info) http://www.krisjohn.net |
OTOH, I have 160k floppy disks from 1983 that I can't read on any PC I can reasonably find today, which is probably OK because the file formats aren't usable by any software on the market either.We've already had that discussion. [I hereby grant full permission for any and all to retransmit, archive, republish and broadcast all of my postings to Slashdot, past, present and future] |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2) by gregbaker (dontspam_ggbaker@sfu.ca) on Saturday April 22, @10:34AM EST (#152) (User Info) |
| Digitals are great for snapshots, web-related stuff, and the like, but most individuals that have a serious interest in photography will own a digital, plus one or more "film" cameras. Part of the problem here, is not the digital technology, but the digital camera itself. For most work, two megapixels should provide enough resolution and clarity. The problem is the camera. Digital cameras (with a couple of exceptions) seem to be aimed at the point-and-shoot crowd. There are only a few (one or two?) digital bodies with a reasonable set of controls to allow depth-of-field, exposure time, etc. control. The ones that exist are outrageously expensive. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong and tell me where I can buy one.) Greg |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:39AM EST (#402) (User Info) |
| Current crop of cameras now allow you to control the aperture, shutter speed and exposure of the image. Check out the Kodak DC290, Nikon CP950/990, Oly 2500/3030. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by joekool (joe@NoSPAMtypeStuffschmoe.virtualave.net) on Saturday April 22, @10:48AM EST (#163) (User Info) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=joekool&threshold=-1 |
| A note to the uninformed medium format film is NOT 35mm--it is an approx 2 inch square of film, and is used to take much higher quality pictures then anything I have seen in a consumer(or even professional) digital camera. Of course that doesn't mean that you shouldn't use digital camera--a few years ago, I worked at a place where we used 4x5 cameras(yes, that's 4 inches by 5 inches of film) for all our work--we switched to digital because it allowed us to have a much greater turn around time,albeit at a large drop in quality. And we were using the best cameras available at the time--they were 10,000$ each, I can't rememember the model # but it was a kodak digital back mounted on a nikon N-90. The point is that the right format must be chosen for the application, and at the moment that means digital for speed, and film for quality! I know all, I see all--guess which is the fun part!? |
| Sorry, you're wrong (Score:2) by Tony Shepps (anton@NOSPAMcatalystinternet.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:59AM EST (#174) (User Info) http://www.zerodefect.net/anton |
| First off, I have a Nikon CoolPix 950 and do semi-pro stuff, mostly as an adjunct to web development. My firm does the website for the Philadelphia Eagles and this year I was invited to spend some time on the sideline during games. Now here's what you do. Open my image, then with a second browser window, open a pro's image. Both of these images were taken in fairly good afternoon light. Both of them stop the action, at least 1/125sec. Both are web-resolution, I grant you. The pro's image was scanned directly from negative. Differences? Well, notice how the pro's image has colors that are incredibly washed out. Notice how the pro's image has no depth of field. Of course, his image is better than mine from a photographer's perspective; hell, I'm a hack. But what does that say about digital photography -- that with a basic understanding of it, a few months of practice, I can produce something that's at least compelling? Note, too that his gear was about $10,000 while mine was the $900 Nikon plus a $150 2x teleconverter. Howzat! Furthermore, I wasn't the only digital photographer there. Another of the pros had a pro-quality Nikon digital with a 340 Meg IBM hard card. And furthermore, with the compact flash reader, I could take all of my images and have them web-ready in about an hour. The pro? Well he required a special room in the stadium with another $3000 of equipment. Lastly, one of the real joys of shooting with a high-res digicam like this is getting to see 1600x1200 shots on a big monitor. It is truly amazing; it takes your breath away in a way that film just doesn't. Go to www.catalystinternet.com/photos, bump your monitor up to full screen, and click on the files that start with "DSCN". Those are the raw files coming straight out of the Nikon CoolPix 950, no cropping, no color correction. (Warning: some of those images are 800K in size. If you only have a slow connection and are male and heterosexual you'll only want to look at DSCN1510.JPG.) This is the fun of having a digital camera; suddenly photography is a wonder again. Suddenly you want to take tons of shots and look at them one-by-one. |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:2) by mOdQuArK! on Saturday April 22, @11:49AM EST (#210) (User Info) |
Differences? Well, notice how the pro's image has colors that are incredibly washed out. Notice how the pro's image has no depth of field. Actually, I would've thought that the lack of depth of field was on purpose - being a "pro", he/she was focusing on the player & deliberately allowing the background to blur. I agree with you about the washed-out coloring though. Being a total amateur at taking pictures myself, I'll be happy when I can snap 100s of pictures & pick out the ones I like. |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:3, Informative) by drix on Saturday April 22, @01:08PM EST (#256) (User Info) |
| Differences? Well, notice how the pro's image has colors that are incredibly washed out. Notice how the pro's image has no depth of field. The short depth of field is a "feature, not a bug," so to speak. It draws attention to the foreground subject by flattening the background. People pay lots of money to get this affect - he was probably using a 300mm-400mm f/2.8 lens, cost: ~$3000. The color washout can be fixed in 5 seconds in Photoshop, BTW. The digital's shot is good, but it actually proves one of the flaws of digital cameras: they can't handle the light range the way a 35mm can. See the underexposure in McNabb's face and under his armpits on your shot? There is no shadow detail there. The highlights are also missing a little detail. Compare with the other shot, where you can see his open mouth, eyes, nose (these elements really make the shot). Digitals are not as versatile as plain old film in this regard. In turn film is not nearly as versatile as your eyes. He didn't spend $10,000 for nothing, BTW. Your $900 digital would have a helluva time focusing on air airborne, running quarterback (It wouldn't be able to, until after the shot was already missed). His expensive SLR has a predictive autofocus computer which can determine the direction the subject is moving and compensate accordingly - severl times a second. By the time your digital got a shot off, he could tear through half a roll of film. I'm not knocking your shot or the camera in any way. For low-res stuff, low-action shots like pretty much everything you find on the web, digitals are a godsend. Just keep in mind that they have a long way to go before they can hold a candle to even a mid-range SLR. People are not spending thousands of dollars in vain. For someone whose livelihood depends on consistently producing great shots, you want the best equipment available. That's why the pro went with the SLR and you with the digital. -- Slade. |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:1) by aquarian on Saturday April 22, @06:16PM EST (#334) (User Info) |
| The colors may look "washed out" on the pro's image, but this is typical with a scanned image. It can be corrected easily with Photoshop, etc. Keep in mind that a computer screen has a greater luminance range than paper; so an image that was shot and developed for printing is not going to reproduce optimally on screen without some work. |
| There's no comparison! (Score:2) by CausticPuppy on Saturday April 22, @07:53PM EST (#352) (User Info) http://j.bruce.home.mindspring.com |
| I like the Pro's image better. Keep in mind that digital cameras are generally better, if you are going to keep the image in the digital domain (ie, viewed on monitors.) For print images, there isn't a printer yet that can truly match a good print film. At least not a printer that mortals can afford. The Pro's image I'm sure looked much better on the film rather than the scanned image, it looks like a bad scanning job. Here's where the expensive equipment shows through... I don't know a whole lot about photography, but the pro photographer really knows how to use depth of field. In the digital shot, can you look at it and tell instantly "what is this a picture of?" Well, the player is just as sharp as the spectators in the stands. It's all kinda busy and running together, you really can't tell what the subject of the image is, other than what's closest to the center of the image. The pro shot clearly says "the player is the thing." And the exposure is such that you can see the expression on his face, whereas the digital shot just kind of blacks it out (autoexposure shows its ugly side). In other words, the digital shot is just as good as any shot that I could take with a disposable 35mm camera with a tiny lens. Now clearly there are areas where digital cameras will overtake, such as press (I don't think National Geographic will go to digital anytime soon though), anybody taking snapshots, evidence documenting, etc. Just keep in mind that there are inherent advantages to analog film, just as there are inherent advantages to the digital media. -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:1) by malice95 (malice@NoSpAm.exit109.com) on Sunday April 23, @12:48AM EST (#388) (User Info) |
| The depth of field in the pros picture is a feature. And I dont think the color looks washed out. I think it loks more realistic then your picture.. although your picture is very good. I noticed in your picture that there does not seem to be much difference in the colors.. as you move across the players shirt you would normally see varying shades of green as the light hits it at different angles.. Yours seems to be rather flat. The shadow detail is not there. Also.. I bet the pro shot 8 pics in the time it took for you to take one. This is another problem with digitals. You cant do reliable sports photography with them. Digitals are great for snap shots, close objects..etc. You cant really get beyond 100mm with of zone with anything under 10 thousand it seems. Digitals are becoming really amazing but the prices need to come down and the add ons need to go up. I would jump on a chance to get a digital back for my canon elan IIe but I cant justify paying 10x the cost of my camera for one. Digital for newpaper work IMHO rocks. Move on to sports, nature, etc. and to get great pics.. you need a great analog (lens especially). Malice |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:1) by malice95 (malice@NoSpAm.exit109.com) on Sunday April 23, @12:52AM EST (#390) (User Info) |
| Lastly, one of the real joys of shooting with a high-res digicam like this is getting to see 1600x1200 shots on a big monitor. It is truly amazing; it takes your breath away in a way that film just doesn't. Go to www.catalystinternet.com/photos, bump your monitor up to full screen, and click on the files that start with "DSCN". Those are the raw files coming straight out of the Nikon CoolPix 950, no cropping, no color correction. (Warning: some of those images are 800K in size. If you only have a slow connection and are male and heterosexual you'll only want to look at DSCN1510.JPG.) BTW.. The red head.. WoWo! I gotta get a sideline pass to an eagles game one of these days. Malice |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:1) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:14AM EST (#417) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| The pro image blows away the digital. The digital image just blows. He's probably at 2.8, you're at 11 or worse. The pro took a picture of a football player. You took a picture of blue bleachers. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Re:Lord save us... (Score:1) by aquarian on Saturday April 22, @06:01PM EST (#333) (User Info) |
| I believe the Coolpix does allow aperture adjustment-- that's one of the things that sets it apart from the average P&S digicam. It's targeted at slightly more serious photographers who want a little more control. And yes, the lens is small, but this is more often an advantage than a disadvantage. One is more likely to be limited by *not enough* depth of field, especially in low light, rather than the opposite. Try shooting a medium format rig in a dimly lit nightclub. This is one reason why 35mm replaced larger formats in the first place. I find your "jockstrap" comment amusing. You know what they say about a big camera as a substitute for something else... |
| Re:Sorry, you're wrong (Score:1) by Ezzelin (ezzelin@softhome.net?subject=slashdot) on Saturday April 22, @08:07PM EST (#360) (User Info) |
| Yes, you can. With a 950, you can put it into either shutter priority mode, where you can manually adjust the shutter speed and it will calculate the aperature for you, or aperature priority mode, where you can manually adjust between three f-stop steps and it will calculate the shutter speed for you. You can also apply exposure compensation to manually lower and raise the shutter speed. Also, you can do manual focus, manual ISO adjustment, and manual white balance. These features are matched nearly point by point in many of Olympus's models and other's, I'm sure. The one high end feature not commonly available is true de-coupled manual control... other then that, sub-$1000 digitals have many advanced manual controls. I have done 8 second exposures with my 950, the background flatten effect, etc. A 950 can do up to 1/750sec exposure, in fact, and you can set it to manually do up to 1/500. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by Lord of Caustic Soda (victor@ubiquity.co.nz) on Saturday April 22, @11:10AM EST (#181) (User Info) |
| One area I see Digital camera as useful for is to replace polaroids for checking flash settings, pity most digital cameras don't come with adaptor for external flash |
| Re:External Flash (Score:1) by Kris_J (news1@krisjohn.net) on Saturday April 22, @06:46PM EST (#340) (User Info) http://www.krisjohn.net |
| Did You Know™ that you can fit an external flash to a Kodak DC20? Apparently it sends a byte of info out the serial port at the exact moment it takes a picture - there's an adapter available, but I forget where. If the cheapest non-toy camera can do it, I'm sure a lot of others can too... [I hereby grant full permission for any and all to retransmit, archive, republish and broadcast all of my postings to Slashdot, past, present and future] |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:42AM EST (#403) (User Info) |
| Oh yes they do! I am using a Vivitar 283 flash gun with my Kodak DC290 camera. The Nikon CP950/990 uses the Nikon flash guns. The Oly 2020/2500/3030 uses its Oly flash guns as well. And so does the Canon Pro 70 with its Speedlite. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by sirinek (billHATESSPAM@sirinek.com) on Saturday April 22, @12:55PM EST (#247) (User Info) http://www.sirinek.com |
| While you are correct in that the professional photographer still has a great need for all the fine-grained control that a real, film-based camera offers, I think the amateur photographer (read you and me who just like to take pictures of friends, family, or vacation stuff) is well-served by a digital camera. So in that vein, I do think digital cameras are replacing film cameras, except maybe in the high-end film camera space. siri |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by kauai_geek (humanclone4@hotmail.com) on Saturday April 22, @01:12PM EST (#259) (User Info) |
| on buying a camera: for the pro - a digital camera is not what you want, you're gonna have to stick to film for right now..... it all comes down to how a digital takes pictures compared to a good film camera. when you push the button with a digital you're not really taking one picture.... you're taking three pics. one in red, one in green, and one in blue. This means that if there is any shaking in the camera one of your pics just isn't gonna look "right" (looking *really* close with photoshop will let you see how your hand shook) and even with a super-keen tripod you're still gonna get a little shake... a film camera on the other hand takes one photo, one exposure, one shot, wham bang, looks crisp if you got your lighting and stuff going on right. for the weekend warrior or stoked parent who just wants to show off the kids: digital camera's are great, you can get a pretty decent shot with a simple sony digital camera they sell at wal-merk (destroyer of Mom & Pop stores everywhere). the main problem you're gonna have is with the software package and connecting the silly camera to your pc... I work as an digital editor for a local photographer and we see the digital problem all the time from customers who bring in disks with really funky images, we're usually more than happy to show em the red haze on the top combined with the blue outline on the bottom after zooming in quite a bit. Surfing is religion |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:2, Informative) by JeremyR (jlr4@cornell.dont-spam-me.edu) on Saturday April 22, @03:54PM EST (#307) (User Info) http://www.frii.net/~jeremy/ |
I wouldn't say there is no digital camera that takes pictures this way, but most of them do not. In many cameras, the CCD has separate sensors for red, green, and blue, all active at the same time. When a picture is taken, the CCD is exposed and then read once. Color artifacts and chromatic aberrations have many causes, but I'm willing to bet that it's not because the CCD in the camera is actually taking three pictures instead of one. Regards, |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by tzanger (tzanger@spam.blows.mixdown.org) on Saturday April 22, @04:38PM EST (#316) (User Info) http://www.mixdown.org |
| ... with a digital you're not really taking one picture.... you're taking three pics. one in red, one in green, and one in blue. I don't think you know what you're talking about. There is only one exposure, not three. The CCD has red, green and blue-sensitive pixels and all are exposed at the same time -- at least with any digital camera I've seen. Now the computer does take these as three seperate "images" this much is true. But they're all exposed in one opening and closing of the shutter. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by tzanger (tzanger@spam.blows.mixdown.org) on Saturday April 22, @04:48PM EST (#321) (User Info) http://www.mixdown.org |
Shit, I didn't copy and paste the other end of the message. :-) I work as an digital editor for a local photographer and we see the digital problem all the time from customers who bring in disks with really funky images, we're usually more than happy to show em the red haze on the top combined with the blue outline on the bottom after zooming in quite a bit. Could you throw this up on a page somewhere? I've taken hundreds of digital pictures with cameras that certainly are not considered professional (Kodak DC30 I believe, it's been a while, and an Epson whose model escapes me entirely at this time) and have never hit this problem, even with "fast" scenes. I've never used a tripod with these cameras, which would only make the problem more apparent. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by My_Favorite_Anonymou on Saturday April 22, @01:53PM EST (#273) (User Info) http://thebigsleep.homepage.com |
| Using digicam to take picture wilder than 28mm or longer than 200mm is like using perl to write a OS. Nuff' Said. You are the guys who can't tell 128kps and 256kps mp3 anyway, so what's different. Saying digicam can replace 35mm film camera is like saying web can replace book/paper, which actually there are some moron believes in. Now I'm not talking about the 5k digital back that takes real Nikon, Canon lenses. I'm talking about the stuff Olympus and Kodak throw at you. I won't say these people concern about content over quality. Because you people are the same who drool over DVD. In this sense Rob is a hypocrite, because you are only worshipping the media/new technology, and don't really have a opinion and taste on the story/music/movie/game/picture. btw Pentax really ought make a low end digital back, something in the range on 1k. I might be able to buy one. They can collarborate with Sony, which doesn't have a mount and lenses line. I don't think Sony will work with others ought. CY /_____\ vvvvvvv../|__/| ...I../O,O....| ...I./........| ..J|/^.^.^ \..|.._//| ...|^.^.^.^.|W|./oo.| ....\m___m__|_|.\mm_| |
| These are tangents (Score:1) by Ptolemy Too on Saturday April 22, @03:52PM EST (#306) (User Info) |
It's been said for the last 3 years that digital cameras are replacing "film" cameras. I don't think that's happening.That's a bit of an overstatement. As you note, "digitals are great for snapshots, web-related stuff, and the like" - they're starting out by filling the ephemeral niche. If what you want is photos for a web page, which makes more sense - develop, print, and scan, or download an already digital image? It seems that the digital camera is an add-on- you don't replace a good camera with a digital, you simply use both.But "good cameras" are not and never have been the bulk of the market. If they were, we wouldn't see all those junky disposable cameras at supermarket checkouts, or on tables at weddings. It's amazing how good the quality of old-fashioned film cameras is. The level of control over your subject through aperture, focus, lenses, exposure time, film usage, and more hasn't been duplicated in the digital world. The quality of 35mm has not been matched in the digital space yet, not to mention medium format!Right. I'd never give up my SLR with interchangeable lenses for a viewfinder. But I'm an outlier and so, evidently, are you. Most people are perfectly happy with a cute little autofocus viewfinder. In fact, the one big argument against digital that will ring true with most people is the one you didn't even mention. Durability. 'We' have photos from the American Civil War, 140 years ago. The last time we visited my parents, my kids looked at some photos of their grandpa when he was their age. Digital media don't age as well. Even if there's still legible data on your old 8" floppies, good luck finding a machine that can read them. And that's only twenty years or so. Similarly, you probably can't find a program that understands the propietary format your hand scanner used ten years ago. Unless you transfer your snapshots from machine to machine and format to format every decade or so, they're just not going to be there for your great-grandchildren. Unlike the photos my Dad had sitting in a box on a shelf for decades. |
| Re: Deja Vu (Score:1) by InitZero (matt@steinhoff.net) on Saturday April 22, @06:47PM EST (#342) (User Info) http://matt.steinhoff.net/ |
It's been said for the last 3 years that digital cameras are replacing "film" cameras. I don't think that's happening. Think again. I work for a large newspaper (which won a Pulitzer this year, by the way). Five years ago, digital was a joke. We wanted to move that direction (digital allows us to extend deadlines) but the quality and ease of use was simply not there. This year, we've replaced our analog cameras in almost a dozen bureaus with digital cameras. No longer are there dark rooms in the field offices. We'd like to get rid of the analog cameras in the main office as well and, in fact, are moving that direction. As often as possible, we're shooting assignments digitally. Costs are down. Deadlines have been extended. Photographers no longer have to leave a sporting event at 10pm to get back to the office and have the film processed by 11:30 pm. Now the photographer waits till 11 pm to stop shooting and them simply emails the photo to the main office. Real estate agents who used to shoot analog film are shooting digital almost exclusively. In high school and college, I did a lot of shooting myself. Since I got my Nikon CoolPix 950, I haven't shot an analog picture. While I certainly see analog film sticking around for the foreseeable future (my recent wedding was shot on silver (yes, B&W)), publication work will be almost entirely digital in two years. Futher, I predict, more than half the snapshots in the next ten years will be digital. Which brings me to the only on-topic part of this message... Get the Nikon CoolPix 950 (or whatever might have replaced it since I bought it). The picture quality is great. The camera is ultra-flexiable. It can go fully-manual or be used as a point and shoot. I own own. My father who was a professional photographer for 35 years got one. I've talk two friends into them. I can't speak highly enough about the camera. (And I don't even have Nikon stock.) InitZero |
| Re: Deja Vu (Nikon CoolPix 950 no good) (Score:1) by Vektor C on Saturday April 22, @07:17PM EST (#345) (User Info) |
Get the Nikon CoolPix 950 ... I can't speak highly enough about the camera. (And I don't even have Nikon stock.) Hard to beleive! The camera has considerably more complicated commands than SLR Nikon's, very small sensitivity (ISO 50), and, the most annoying thing I've found is that has abnormaly large lag time (that is the time interval between the moment one presses the button and the picture has been actualy taken). For point'n'shoot photographers additional annoyance will be lack of red-eye reduction. On the top of all this, for $900 one can buy a decent SLR with a decent film scanner and get much better digital output at the end. |
| Re: Deja Vu (Nikon CoolPix 950 no good) (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @02:07AM EST (#409) (User Info) |
| US$900 used to buy an SLR and scanner will still have the operating costs of batteries, film and processing. US$1000 for a p-n-s digital camera including card readers and bigger capacity storage media still saves you a lot of money - even if you decide to print the photos at US$0.50 per 4x6 print (you get to choose which ones to print and how many). FYI, some digital cameras have red-eye reduction built-in. |
| Re: Deja Vu (Nikon CoolPix 950 no good) (Score:1) by Vektor C on Sunday April 23, @11:16PM EST (#445) (User Info) |
| Even medium quality film scanner (say any with dynamic range 3.0 or better) has much better performances than the most expensive digital camera. So you tell me how much batteries and film processing can you get for $10000? |
| Re: Deja Vu (Nikon CoolPix 950 no good) -- Not! (Score:1) by InitZero (matt@steinhoff.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:42PM EST (#443) (User Info) http://matt.steinhoff.net/ |
For point'n'shoot photographers additional annoyance will be lack of red-eye reduction. The 900, 950 and 990 all have red-eye reduction. All three have also have a connection so you can use an external flash (SB-28/28DX/26/25/24/22 supported as well as clones). In addition to the CoolPix 950's still ability, it also allows you to do video out (NTSC and PAL). Since I don't have a real video camera, this is a useful feature for me. Nikon is offering a $100 rebate on the 950 now the Nikon CoolPix 990 is out. The 990 has some awesome specs. I won't take it personally if folks don't buy the Nikon CoolPix series, but I will think that they are making a mistake if they are looking for a serious, one-step-under-professional, digital camera. InitZero |
| Re: Deja Vu (Nikon CoolPix 950 no good) -- Not! (Score:1) by Vektor C on Sunday April 23, @11:47PM EST (#447) (User Info) |
So let's look at those "awesome specs" of Nikon CoolPix 990: 2,048 x 1,536 pixels image compared to $430 film scanner sitting here on my computer (which is by all means old technology in film scanners) that gives me 3409 x 2288 pixels image from 35mm negative or positive, B/W or color. Now, I can go further, and specs don't even tell me the lag time that realy bothered me with my friend's CoolPix I've used (which is the one that got all those "best cheap digital camera" awards and doesn't have red-eye reduction (good for point'n'shooters that they've fixed that)). Why don't you give me one feature of 950 that will beat similarly priced configuration of a SLR and film scanner. |
| Re: Deja Vu (Nikon CoolPix 950 no good) -- Not! (Score:1) by InitZero (matt@steinhoff.net) on Monday April 24, @09:47AM EST (#452) (User Info) http://matt.steinhoff.net/ |
Why don't you give me one feature of 950 that will beat similarly priced configuration of a SLR and film scanner. I can shoot a picture with the 950 and have it on the web two minutes later. Show me a chrome-shooting SLR that can do that. You're missing the point that being able to shoot and then turn around and upload it to the net is a real benefit. I'm not anti-SLR by any means. I've got an FM-2, 8008, F2 and Nikonus 5. I've shot a ton of film. I've been published in magazines and in newspapers (the latter as a real photojournalist). I really like film. At the same time, there is a real benfit to being able to quickly get film from point A to point B. A month and a half ago, I had my wedding shot on silver by the professional, but my father was shooting with the CoolPix. Less than two hours after the reception, my father had the CoolPix pictures online for the out-of-town friends and relatives to check out. It took two weeks to get the proofs and negatives from the professional. Same thing with the honeymoon pictures. There was no way in hell my wife was going to let me take along a negative scanner and C-41 kit with us. But she had no problems with shooting digital and uploading the pictures every few days from the hotel room. The professional pictures are better quality, of course, but the digital images served a purpose. Certainly you see some value in digital cameras, right?
InitZero |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by desideria on Saturday April 22, @08:44PM EST (#364) (User Info) |
| Fools! It is still obivous that paint and canvas will win out in the end. It is easy to use, cheap and hi-res. What more could a person want? |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by Wild_dog! on Saturday April 22, @09:35PM EST (#372) (User Info) |
| One time I read an article...maybe 10 years ago comparing the resolution equivalent of slide film with that of CCD imaging. In order for digital media to capture all that a typical 35mm slide does, the resolution would need to be on the order of 16-18 million pixels. The true resolution would need to be on the order of 3,600 x 5,400 pixels or greater. We are not quite there yet, but quite soon I believe such resolutions will be available. The only problem then will be working out ways to give such cameras the same level of control and function that a regular SLR has. As for medium format who knows how soon we will get a camera on the market . |
| Exposure latitude (Score:1) by Count Fragula on Saturday April 22, @10:45PM EST (#380) (User Info) |
| Now it's been a while since I've worked in this field directly, but one point that stands out by its not beind addressed is the issue of exposure latitude for digital CCDs vs. chemical film emulsion. Yeah, resolution is important. That's an incremental technical issue. And quality lenses can be attached to the better digital cameras now. But exposure latitude (the ratio of complete black to complete white, you might say the "luminosity bandwidth") is what really "tells" your eyes if you are seeing a natural film photo or a digital capture. In my eyes' experience (certain brands of) film excel at granting wide exposure latitude across the entire color spectrum, whereas CCDs are more cramped. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:58AM EST (#407) (User Info) |
| Digital cameras are slowly replacing film in the point-and-shoot category. More people are buying digital cameras for the convenience of being able to send photos to their friends and relatives anywhere in the world either by putting up a website or by attaching it to email. Others who prefer prints can easily send it to online photoprinting sites. On the more serious side of photography, SLR digital cameras have still a long way to go until it reaches the price level of the SLR film cameras. The Oly 2500 is one SLR camera and the Sony DSC770 is another - but they are still quite expensive considering the film SLR alternatives. As for features such as aperture, shutter speed, exposure, film type controls, prosumer digital cameras can now do that. As for 35mm print quality - digital cameras from 2M pixels and higher - can now rival prints from 35mm film at up to 8x10 sizes. Anything higher requires more pixels. Given a print from a photoprinter - you will find it quite difficult to determine which came from a digital camera and which one came from 35mm film camera at normal viewing distances. |
| Replace NOW! (-: (Score:1) by leonbrooks on Monday April 24, @05:20AM EST (#449) (User Info) http://users.smileys.net/~leonb/ |
| I've just finished a whirlwind tour of the Pilbara, toting a Sony DSC-F505 (1600x1200, manual everything if required, auto everything if not, also does short videos and sound bites). The ability to pick up a small, light, digital camera from a mouse-mat behind the gearstick and have a viewfinder-aligned picture in seconds, as compared with the time involved unpacking a decent but large and heavy optical camera and getting it steady, has won me many photos from subjects who would otherwise have been long gone. I met a geologist in my travels, with a nice film Nikon and a great set of filters that cost exactly as much as my 505 and 32MB RAM stick. Most of his pictures will look better than most of mine, but I'll get pictures that he won't, and get them faster. In the tradeoff between grain and pixellisation, film still wins (well, serious film still wins), but won't for long. Each year's new generation of cameras seems to up the number of pixels by the golden ratio at no increase in real price, where film seems to be hitting the design envelope. Film, like glow-in-the-dark valves, will be a very long time dying, but the writing is on the wall. --- If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by ErikZ on Saturday April 22, @09:27AM EST (#79) (User Info) |
| I believe there is more to this than the numbers. I have some grainy photos for you to look at, taken with film. How can this be if film is so 'High res'? I also have my prom pictures. Yes the top of my head is sheared off. This was taken by my mother and it would of been perfect if we had a Digicam. She would of looked at it and said 'Hey, this didn't turn out right.' What's your obession with turning the Amazon rain forest into paper products? How about an LCD screen for showing photos and only printing out the ones that you want to give to other people? If they have email you can send them all a copy, for free. Later Erik Z |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:3, Insightful) by Andy Dodd (atd7@cornellNO.SPAMedu) on Saturday April 22, @10:06AM EST (#119) (User Info) http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/atd7/ |
| Thos grainy photos are just a bad picture... Either because you underexposed or you used bad film. (Like high-speed Kodak Max. Compare Kodak Max 800 to Fuji's 800, the difference is amazing. And if you really care about grains, use ISO 100 or less film.) Properly exposed good film has a resolution of well over 2000 dots (I think over 3000, even) for 35mm film. Then you have medium/large format, where you have film that measures on the order of 4x5 inches at a resolution of over 2000 dpi. (I don't recall the specs, but 2000 is being VERY conservative) For the average home user, a digicam is a good bet. But for a serious (or semi-serious) photographer, a $600 SLR (Like my old Pentax PZ-70, nowadays I could get an even better camera for less) will obliterate a $600 digicam. (Like the Olympus C-2020. It's sweet as far as digicams go, and my mom is giving my dad one for his birthday, but our old Pentax blows it away if you want to do anything more than a basic picture.) |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:2) by Tim Behrendsen (tim{at}behrendsen{dot}com) on Saturday April 22, @10:39AM EST (#158) (User Info) http://www.behrendsen.com |
Try scanning some 35mm prints sometime. You run out of resolution at about 300 dpi. They are not as high as you think they are. I've been doing some experiments, and I was surprised by how low resolution 35mm is, even with a high-quality SLR camera with low-speed film. -- |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by inburito on Saturday April 22, @12:16PM EST (#223) (User Info) |
| Uh.. no way the prints are going to be able to go up to 2000dpi but the actual film will be. Ever heard of film-scanners(the ones you put your negatives into)? If what you're claiming were true than the maximum obtainable picture from a film would be about 400pixels wide and everything else that those 2000dpi-film scanners do could be accomplished with interpolation.. I don't think so. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:2) by Tim Behrendsen (tim{at}behrendsen{dot}com) on Saturday April 22, @04:52PM EST (#323) (User Info) http://www.behrendsen.com |
Dude, a negative is like 1 inch wide. I'm scanning a 4x6 inch print, which at 300 dpi corresponds to 1200x1800. Allowing that a bit of resolution is lost by transfering to a print, we're saying the same thing: 2000dpi * 1 inch ~= 300 dpi * 6 inches. The point is that 35mm is not 16000 dots across. -- |
| A *lot* of resolution is lost in the blowup (Score:2) by Andy Dodd (atd7@cornellNO.SPAMedu) on Tuesday April 25, @09:35PM EST (#458) (User Info) http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/atd7/ |
| Otherwise, why is blowing a picture up to 8.5x11 (or more) possible? |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:3, Interesting) by SuperKendall (kgelner@bigfoot.com) on Sunday April 23, @12:06AM EST (#384) (User Info) |
| Try scanning some 35mm prints sometime. You run out of resolution at about 300 dpi Part of that is that the paper you are scanning does not hold as much information as the film does - here's an interesting comparison page that shows film scans ranging from 2400dpi to 6000dpi (drum scans). They also comapre the same images from digital cameras, 35mm, and 4x5 (large format) cameras. I think even counting for the enlarged size of the photo, film still has a lot more resolution than you think! ---> Kendall |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by Tim Behrendsen (tim{at}behrendsen{dot}com) on Sunday April 23, @09:47AM EST (#429) (User Info) http://www.behrendsen.com |
Interesting. The problem is that there are so many variables that go into the process; the quality of the lenses, the film, the developing and of course, the scanner. When I compared scanning a 4x6 print from an SLR camera at 300 dpi and at 600 dpi, I couldn't see any more detail. I'm sure using pro equipment and pro film you can get considerably higher detail than my stuff. -- |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:2) by SuperKendall (kgelner@bigfoot.com) on Sunday April 23, @11:47PM EST (#446) (User Info) |
| I'll have to try isolating out some of the variables - one thing I intend to try soon is scan a print taken with an old 35mm P&S, both at 300 and 600 dpi - then try the same scan from a film scanner at 4000dpi and see how much more detail is revealed (if any!). That's a comparison I've not seen done, to see how much detail is lost to printing even in the case of an old camera with a mediocre lens. That effort is hampered only by my flatbed scanner having died recenently... (hint: never buy a UMAX scanner!!!) ---> Kendall |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @10:51AM EST (#168) |
| Properly exposed good film has a resolution of well over 2000 dots (I think over 3000, even) for 35mm film. I don't know where you come up with this, but I've never heard of film being measured in "dots". Laser printers are compared in dpi. Scanners in dpi. They are digital devices. Film is not. Film, at least according to Kodak and Fuji, is measured in lines per millimeter. To simply make a blanket statement that 35mm film has x resolution, is not correct. They cannot be compared, as the underlying technology is vastly different. Different films have vastly different resolving abilities. The best film in the world for resolution is Kodak Technical Pan. At 25 ASA, when developed in Technidol Liquid, it delivers absolutely razor sharp enlargements up to 20x24 from a 35mm negative. It's resolving power is in excess of 250 lines/mm. Kodak T-Max 400 can resolve a max of 125 lines/mm at 400 ASA in T-Max RS developer. How do these compare to DPI...I don't know. It's not accurate to compare. With these films, the capability of the film to store detail FAR exceeds the ability of the camera and photographer. Razor sharp focusing is hard to do, even for a professional. Most consumers own really crappy, slow, lenses. This too will have a huge impact on photo quality. For the average home user, a digicam is a good bet. I agree saying a $600 SLR will demolish a digi cam. But so will a $100 SLR. It's the lens, more than the film. All a camera is, is a light tight box. Nothing more. Too many people get caught up in buying a super expensive camera. Don't. Buy a cheap ass Nikon FM, and a Nikon 50/1.4. Total price, under $300. Quality, better than any digi cam under $5000. If you buy a digi cam, you're going to have to spend gobs of money printing out all the pictures. You're going to have to find a storage system. CDr's have a limited life, so do crappy inkjet prints, never mind the horrid quality compared to a photographic paper. Who wants to scrapbook a bunch of inkjet prints with non-archival and acidic inks? If you're serious about quality, stick with film. If you want something to last, stick with film. If you want to take quick little snapshots of your dog, or your partner for a web page or to spam your friends via email with, get a digi cam. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:2, Informative) by marburg on Saturday April 22, @11:34AM EST (#201) (User Info) |
| The best film in the world for resolution is Kodak Technical Pan. ..... It's resolving power is in excess of 250 lines/mm. Lessee... 250 lines/mm * 25.4mm/in. == 6350 lines/in. Take 'lines' to be 'dots' and y ou have 6350dpi....
That's in the neighborhood of 3000dpi, taking the above calc as a reference.
With some careful consideration, you can compare them. Just keep in mind the bigger picture. (ie. don't let the media soundbyte you on it) So the previous post was in the neighborhood; just keep in mind which neighborhood. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by dsfox on Saturday April 22, @02:47PM EST (#290) (User Info) |
| At siggraph last year I saw a guy who was drawing digital holograms onto film with a computer. He used some film that did hundreds of thousands of lines per inch. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by AME on Sunday April 23, @04:32AM EST (#412) (User Info) |
| I knew a guy once who made is own holograms. (Or should that be holographs? I don't know.) He claimed the film was ASA 1. I'd love to know where he got that stuff. -- "Like many afflictions, recursion can be eradicated once its causes are understood." --Arch D. Robison |
| Holograms (OT) (Score:1) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:44AM EST (#419) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| I drew some holograms by hand. They were simple geometric shapes at approx 10 lines per inch. It actually worked quite well. Sort of like really low res white light holos. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Can't do that (6350dpi not enough!) (Score:1) by Vektor C on Saturday April 22, @06:46PM EST (#341) (User Info) |
Lines are not dots, i.e. resolving power is not the same thing as the dpi resolution. Imagine taking the same test picture of lines with your 6350dpi digital camera. The picture you're gonna get digitaly depends on how the lines of the picture are aligned with the line of sensors. Good old aliasing will occur. So you have to have more (considerably more) than 6350dpi in your camera to resolve 250 lines per inch. The end of the post with "Just keep in mind bigger picture...media soundbyte...neighbourhood" is remarkably annoying. |
| Re:Can't do that (6350dpi not enough!) (Score:1) by CurtisLeeFulton (echo O0otisf@bl0o.Ox|sed y/Oo0/cru/) on Saturday April 22, @11:37PM EST (#383) (User Info) http://blur.cx |
For years the print industry has been using the following formula: lines per inch * 1.5 = dots per inch So according to print professionals, an image taken with film that can do 6350 lpi would lose resolution at any value below 9520 dpi. I'm guessing that a negative is about an inch wide so we're looking at a horizontal res of 9520 pixels for a CCD that's going to compete with that kind of film. Not too big a deal. At the rate the technology is advancing, CCDs should be able to match that res in a few years. And considering that a mini-DV cartridge can hold well over a gig in the space the size of a zipo, storage isn't really an issue. (A single 9520x4750 RGB uncompressed TIFF file is about 13 megs.) |
| Re:Can't do that (6350dpi not enough!) (Score:1) by CurtisLeeFulton (echo O0otisf@bl0o.Ox|sed y/Oo0/cru/) on Sunday April 23, @05:42PM EST (#442) (User Info) http://blur.cx |
you're right, sorry about that number. ~130 megs is more like it for an uncompressed tiff. Depending on the shutter speed a camera taking pictures of this quality is going to need to write to ram at speeds from 1 to 3.9 gigaBYTES a second. Of course, simple jpeg compression (no optimization at highest quality) can bring that image down to 30 megs easy. A neural array of compression chips should be able to do this. That would allow the image to be written to a ram buffer before it is transfered to a 3 gig mini drive. When the drive is full the pictures can be saved onto a magnetic tape. Expensive stuff today, but we'll see it in a few years. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:2) by jetson123 (br_9801 at hotmail dot com) on Saturday April 22, @12:23PM EST (#228) (User Info) |
| Properly exposed, good 35mm film may have a resolution of 1000 lines per inch, but that's not the same as 2000 pixels: each pixels has an 8 or a 10 bit value; you need a lot of lines to get that kind of gradation in film. That's why a lot of people do medium format photography: even though MF probably doesn't have a lot more resolution than 35mm, the gradations of MF pictures are so much better. It's also why regular PhotoCD doesn't really bother to scan much more than that. From a practical point of view, current cameras with 1600x1200 resolution are pretty close to what most people get out of 35mm; there are differences, but they are a toss-up--digital does actually do some things better. Once the resolution doubles or triples, there is little reason to go with 35mm. |
| None of the current digicams cut it (Score:1) by dsfox on Saturday April 22, @02:45PM EST (#288) (User Info) |
| but the problem isn't resolution. The problem is lens selection, the dynamic range of the photosensor, size, and battery life. There are only three or four cameras that aren't monsters that can take real lenses - a Minolta, a Fuji, and two Nikons. They all have flaws, including prices starting at four grand. Furthermore, the photosensors don't have the nice logarithmic response of film. Backgrounds are much more likely to be washed out and so on. The Minolta RD-3000 comes closest, but its still a little bulky compared to the film version, and I've heard it is rather slow and can't handle low light situations very well. So I wait... |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by HardLogic (hardlogic@ySaPhAoMo.com) on Saturday April 22, @05:05PM EST (#325) (User Info) |
| Hey, some people might actually like a sorty grainy picture, for the same reasons that people choose black and white or physical manipulation of polaroids. Personally, I'd love to have a digicam that had a much higher resolution, but was only black and white. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by Schafer (doug.schafer@REMOVEhomeTHISdotcom) on Sunday April 23, @12:57AM EST (#392) (User Info) |
| 100 ASA film can be awfully good. For slide (chrome/positive) film, I've seen 3dB points in excess of 6000 lines (you can get 6000 pixels across the image, and still make them out). I do film recorder (devices that print to film) design for a living. We print to film at resolutions up to 16,384 x 13,448 pixels(614MB/image). 4" x 5" film is the usual target at the top resolution. Getting one pixel off grid by 25% is discernable. BTW, the reason film resolution is often referred to in absolute pixel count rather than dpi is because the film is rarely the final output size--an enlarged print or a projection screen (in the case of a slide) is. This makes it hard for us to choose point size, as you might imagine. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by dgenius (dgenius@pioneernet.net) on Saturday April 22, @11:23AM EST (#195) (User Info) |
| Why's everyone so hell-bent on turning trees into paper, anyway? Hemp would've been the standard paper product if it weren't for government intervention on the sake of the children, who might get hooked on smoking rope. Hemp is farmable, doesn't take eighty years to reach a reasonable size, and lasts longer than normal paper. I've got books from when I was in third grade that's paper has degraded to worse than the Declaration of Independence, which was printed on hemp paper. |
| DuPont destroyed the hemp paper business (Score:1) by Billy Donahue (spam_billy_spam@spam_escape_spam.com) on Saturday April 22, @11:46AM EST (#206) (User Info) http://www.escape.com/~billy |
| Actually, the DuPont Corporation had congress in its pocket. They had just patented a new process for bleaching and pulverizing wood pulp. Just one problem: they needed to eliminate hemp, so they cooked up a lot of racial fear and bogus medical testimony (which the AMA protested) regarding marijuana at a 3 hour congressional hearing. Just like that, it was done. As a matter of fact, you could always grow hemp with little or no THC. This didn't matter, of course. Library/school filtering software would probably prevent you from learning this on the 'net, right? |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by mgscheue on Saturday April 22, @12:52PM EST (#244) (User Info) |
| Resolving power and graininess are different things; it's possible for one film to have both more grain and more resolution than another. Visual graininess isn't the result of being able to see individual grains but rather clumps of grains. At any rate, film remains far ahead of digital and likely will for a while. Fuji Velvia, for example, resolves 160 lines/mm. You have to scan with at least 4000 dpi to begin to approach the limit of film, and that produces a very large file, certainly bigger than anything you'll get out of a consumer digital camera. That said, digital as a recording medium certainly does have its uses and is becoming extremely popular with photojournalists (especially with the release of the very nice Nikon D1), but for that application speed is more important than ultimate quality. And digital is great for output. A high-quality scan and an inkjet print of a slide or negative now can look as good, if not better, than the traditional enlarger and silver paper method. Mark |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @02:27PM EST (#282) |
| " have some grainy photos for you to look at, taken with film. How can this be if film is so 'High res'? I also have my prom pictures. Yes the She would of looked at it and said 'Hey, this didn't turn out right.' " ******************* Most instant cameras do not have through-the-lens view finder. It's something called "parallax" in photography. In other words. What you see is notwhat you get. That's why your mom chopped your head off. Or, maybe she's trying to tell you something. :p Most instant camera uses film sizes smaller than Most consumers just process their films at the 1 Try shoot a roll of Kodakchrome 25ASA with a I use 6 cameras myself. Two Nikons 135mm F- 3 SLR And I process all of my films myself. Except (color slides). But digital camera is great for snap shots, journalist, and so on. But for anything that I want to keep for long . / |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by tyrann98 on Saturday April 22, @10:03AM EST (#114) (User Info) |
| It's not just resolution. I think most photographers will be satisfied with a 3-5 megapixel camera. Very few individuals get prints larger than 6x4", and with a resolution of 200 dpi for a print even a 1-2 megapixel camera should be satisfactory. But the equivalent film speed is a limitation (typically ISO 100-200). More expensive digital cameras do not have such a limited film speed. You'll probably get better night shots and not require a flash in more situations. I've seen lots of bad digital photos at dimly lit night and wedding settings. 400 speed film with a decent flash is so much better. 2-3 years before digital cameras get really big (40-50 % of cameras) with simple printers and good storage. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:2) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:56AM EST (#420) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| > Very few individuals get prints larger than 6x4. Nobody gets prints larger than 6x4. At least not the whole roll. But when I take that ONE photo that's really good, I want to make it big ansd hang it on the wall. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Re:When digicams can do 16000x12000, film will die (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:20AM EST (#397) (User Info) |
| You don't need 16000x12000 to produce crisp prints unless they are 36x24 prints. |
| Re:But will 'printed' photos last 100 years in alb (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:22AM EST (#398) (User Info) |
| Digital prints can last 100 years if properly handled. It may not last as long as chemically processed prints if they are exposure to direct sunlight 24/7, though. |
| Re:Deja Vu (Score:1) by PINOY on Sunday April 23, @01:43AM EST (#405) (User Info) |
| The thing with the Nikon D1 is - if you take as many photos as the pros, the cost of film and processing will soon become more than the cost of the D1 itself. |
| Olympus D-360L (Score:3, Informative) by Lord Ender on Saturday April 22, @08:41AM EST (#5) (User Info) http://marietta.edu/~browne |
| This cammera is the C|Net editor's choice and for a good reason. It also has a 99% approval rating on their site. Anybody wanting some great resources for picking a digital camera should go here: http://cnet.com/shopping/0-1427343-7-1436443.html?tag=st.cn.1.sptlt.1427343-7-1436443. Thanks to them, I got the Olympus D-360L for about $250 and I am incredibly happy with the purchase. It has everything I want and although I have not tested it their site says it has full Linux support. I strongly recomend this. /* Try writing 'GNU' without using an acronym. Go ahead. Try it. I dare ya. */ |
| Re:Olympus D-360L (most Olympus cams superior) (Score:2, Informative) by Mike Miller (mikem@computer.org) on Sunday April 23, @12:22AM EST (#386) (User Info) |
| I've had a D-220 and then later upgraded to a D-400. While digital cameras can't beat SLRs for quality in general, my D-400 is good enough (thanks to photo printing from kodak.com and shutterfly.com) to be comparable to a generic 35mm point-n-click with zoom. Olympus is really strong because they are leveraging their experience in film cameras and lenses very effectivly into their digital cameras. They have really nice capture. My strong reccomendation is to get a camera with an optical zoom (3x is good). It really makes the difference, and digital zoom is a joke as we all pretty much know.
- Mike |
| Re:And smartmedia cards with floppy adapter rule! (Score:1) by ErikZ on Saturday April 22, @09:32AM EST (#84) (User Info) |
| That's odd. I just use the PCMIA slot on my laptop. Buy an adapter for the Compact flash and plug it in. Copies over the pictures as fast as the hard drive can handle it. But if you MUST have universial acceptance, I would go for the Sony line that uses floppies. Later Erik Z |
| Re:DUH! For every machine w USB, there's 10 w flop (Score:1) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:59AM EST (#421) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| But I only care about MY computer, not those 9 others that don't have usb. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Re:And smartmedia cards with floppy adapter rule! (Score:1) by Ezzelin (ezzelin@softhome.net?subject=slashdot) on Saturday April 22, @09:02PM EST (#367) (User Info) |
| Both smartmedia and Compactflash have multiple ways of transferring photos. They can both be put into pcmcia adapters and usb readers (for desktops. Also, every camera comes with some kind of cable connection between it and the computer (either serial (PC/Mac or both) or USB). Between these three methods (I have used them all) you really don't need a floppy. Besides, doesn't anybody remember how unreliable and slow floppy disks are? How many times have we all had floppy disks fail on us? Face it: floppy disks are an outdated technology. Best stick with newer-and faster-technology that can work with nearly any computer, and arguably any computer that you'd actually want to do photo work on. The whole floppy disk argument is moot, IMHO. |
| stick or floppy? (Score:1) by jeroenb on Saturday April 22, @08:43AM EST (#6) (User Info) |
| I always thought the memorystick was the ideal memory for these cameras and although I'm very happy with it, I have to say that the ones with an FDD can be very handy also, especially if you make a lot of pictures with a computer nearby. I wouldn't travel the world with 5 ten-packs of 3.5" disks though :) But it's good if you have a laptop with you. |
| Nikon Coolpix 990 (Score:2, Informative) by bert (bert@box.balpol.tudelft.nl) on Saturday April 22, @08:43AM EST (#7) (User Info) http://box.balpol.tudelft.nl/~bert/ |
| The new Coolpix 990 is great (but not cheap at about $900), judging from this in-depth review by Phil Askey of dpreview.com. |
| Re: Coolpix 990 -> Coolpix 800 not bad either! (Score:1) by iefpe (frederikpNO@SPAM.compuserve.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:21AM EST (#72) (User Info) |
| I've been using the Nikon Coolpix 800 (the 950's smaller brother) for a few months now, and I'm very pleased with the results. The Coolpix 800 does not have the 950's rotating lens, but it's nearly equivalent for the rest: 2.1 megapixel, matrix measuring, opical (2x) zoom, good LCD screen on the back, and built-in flash. The camera has good automatic modes, and a manual mode allows you to change all the settings (aperture, shutter speed ...), albeit through a rather clumsy menu-interface. It works best with bright light, obviously, but the grain in low-light pictures is viable, and in any case, the built-in flash is quite powerful. The quality of the optics is what you would expect from Nikon: very good! Pictures are stored on a CompactFlash card, in 1600x1200 pixels. In "normal" compression mode, you can fit about 16 on the standard 8 Mb card. You can take pictures in burst mode, at up to 30 frames per second (but images are 320x240 then). The camera works on 4 AA batteries, and for best results, it is very much advisable to use rechargeable NiMh batteries. The camera has energy-saving features, so battery life is rather good. The biggest drawbacks in my opinion are the high price, but especially the lack of USB connectivity. The download speed using standard serial ports is not exactly fast. One way around this, especially useful for laptop users, is to get a PCMCIA adapter for the CompactFlash card, that way you can transfer pictures to your computer as easily as copying files from a floppy. Nikon's product page for the Coolpix 800 can be found here. iefpe |
| Re: Coolpix 990 -> Coolpix 800 not bad eith (Score:1) by greck (greck@unpunk.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:33AM EST (#85) (User Info) http://unpunk.com/~greck/ |
| I'll second this... I've had my 800 for a couple of months now and have been VERY happy with its performance, battery life, everything. However, as soon as I have the cash I'm upgrading to the 990... the extra resolution is nice, but I want aperture-priority and shutter-priority options. Speaking of options, the coolest accessory I've picked up is this tiny tripod from REI... in its folded state it looks like a fat tent stake, and you can use the velcro wrap to attach it to anything cylindrical--4x4 post, stair railing, stop sign. |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix 990 (Score:2, Informative) by Kizeh on Saturday April 22, @09:28AM EST (#80) (User Info) |
| One of the things the Coolpix finally brings to consumer digital cameras is the histogram display. It's a good example of the things that you can do with a digital camera that you can't with a traditional one. For serious work you still have to look at the Nikon D1, Kodak DCS560 and the like for good external flash support, interchangeable lenses such as telephoto, macro, fish-eye, decent filtering, anti moire, low noise and other features most consumer and prosumer camera vendors keep the buyer totally unaware of. Having a gazillion pixels does you little good if the optics smudge the image and the CCD is noisy, slow and has a poor dynamic range. If you want a good and cheap digital camera, you still have to buy two different ones. |
| Sony Digital Mavica (Score:1) by MooseMunch on Saturday April 22, @08:44AM EST (#8) (User Info) http://mikehelmick.com |
| Reasons... 1) Flopy disk media means that you never have to have a computer nearby to download pictures to. Making it great for vacations. 2) flopy disk media will work in any computer (almost) So weather you are a linux guy, mac, or windows...the same disk works for you. 3) Lots of models. Sony offers 5 or 6 different models, all with different features. 4) They're just cool :) |
| Floppy disk sucks (Score:1) by Betcour on Saturday April 22, @08:55AM EST (#27) (User Info) |
| My Canon S20 makes pictures of 1,5 Mo average... so floppy disks pretty sucks. They are only good for very low-resolution cameras (which sucks) |
| Re:Floppy disk sucks (Score:1) by Z00100 (spamthis@evilbastards.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:14AM EST (#61) (User Info) http://www.exacomp.com |
| I agree. My friend has a mavica, and I really don't think it's that good. For web uses or for e-mailing, it's fine, but it's rez is so low, that printing a pic is relatively out of the question. A superdisk mavica on the other hand would be VERY good!! |
| Re:Sony Digital Mavica (Score:2, Informative) by Higher Ground (HigherGround@post.nospam.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:28AM EST (#81) (User Info) |
| I've been travelling for about the last year and bought a mavica to document my trip. It's done everything I could ask for. Are the pictures as good as some other digicams? No, but the floppy disk format more than makes up for this shortcoming, at least in my circumstances. I can't lug a laptop everywhere I so, so storing the 1.5 m files created by 'better' cameras is just impractical. The other advantage has already been touched on by someone else. The floppy disks work with just about any computer, so no matter what the cyber cafe in Podunk, Ireland or where ever is running, I can get pictures to people who would want to see them. If you're the kind who wants to take professional quality pictures, you'd probably do well to look elsewhere, but for my 'on the road' usage, I don't think the mavica can be beaten.
|
| Re:Sony Digital Mavica (Score:1) by y6y6y6 (jon@jonsullivan.com) on Saturday April 22, @07:55PM EST (#354) (User Info) http://www.jonsullivan.com |
| I've had a Mavica for about 6 months now. I've taken hundreds of pictures. I'm VERY happy with it. I get 6 photos on each disk at hi-res and standard quality. When I print these images on my HP 970c, they are fantastic. Jon Sullivan www.jonsullivan.com |
| Question: Does the adapter require a driver? (Score:1) by Kludge on Saturday April 22, @09:27PM EST (#371) (User Info) |
| Does the floppy adapter with your Olympus require a software driver? If it does do you know of any SmartMedia floppy adapters that do not require a driver? |
| Why not? (Score:3, Interesting) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Saturday April 22, @08:45AM EST (#9) (User Info) |
| Well, there are still reasons for traditional cameras. First, they're cheaper, and less fragile. Do you want to bring your $600 toy into the pit at an Atari Teenage Riot show, or would you rather carry a disposable camera? Second, if your ultimate goal is to have prints to keep around, it's cheaper to develop a roll of film than the print out a digital image on a photo printer (with photo paper and ink). Plus, while it takes about the same amount of time, sometimes it's more convenient to just drop off the film, get lunch, and come back 23 minutes later than to spend that 23 minutes over your computer. Third, there's quality. I'm not going to go into the old argument of the theoretical quality of analog vs. digital (records vs. CDs, for example), because they're mostly biased BS. But anyone can look at a picture taken with a consumer digital camera and a picture taken with an equivalent-priced analog camera and see the difference. And when you factor in interpolated digital zoom vs. optical zoom (since most digital cameras only do a small amount of optical zoom, whereas for the same price you could buy a good traditional camera and any zoom lens you want), it's even more dramatic. I'm not saying that digital cameras don't have their place. But for the time being, traditional cameras have their place, too. no .sig, no slogan |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by MochaMan on Saturday April 22, @09:56AM EST (#108) (User Info) |
| First, they're cheaper, and less fragile. Traditional cameras are most definitely not cheaper. As someone who does a ton of photography, I should point out that most people don't realise it, but most of the cost of owning a camera is paying for film, development and printing. Second, traditional cameras, are likely to be just as fragile as a digital camera, except that they have more moving parts (shutter screens, rollers, etc.) that can seize up over time. I certainly wouldn't take this into consideration when buying a camera though -- unless I knew it was going to be handled rough. That being said, my recommendation would be to head over to www.photo.net, Phil Greenspun's excellent photography resource, and check out the ton of recommendations tips and techniques he and reviewers have posted. Though I don't own a digital camera, I have done a ton of looking in the past few months because I am thinking of getting one to reduce the cost of photography. The Nikon Coolpix is the best I've seen for the snapshot shooter, while the Nikon D1 is the most fantastic SLR I've had the pleasure of checking out. Nikon is known for their excellent optics, and I have been nothing but pleased with anything I have owned from them. I was also impressed with some of the Kodak cameras I played with, so you might consider checking some of those out. Before you buy any camera, ask to play around with it a bit first. Most shops will allow you to shoot a roll (or, I guess, a flash card?) if you give them collateral, or know them well. If not, ask to shoot a few in the store. And, last but not least, definitely read the reviews available on the net before you buy. |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by mgscheue on Saturday April 22, @01:06PM EST (#253) (User Info) |
| There's a huge range of prices for both film and digital cameras and, in either case, quality costs money. But there's different ways of measuring cheaper. The Nikon 950 that you'll pay $800 or so for this year won't be worth much in five years, but a Nikon F5 or Leica M6 certainly will be. My ancient Nikon FG is still worth about what I paid for it many years ago. Also, good lenses are expensive and that doesn't change whether you're using film or digital. Good point about the cost of consumables. It becomes very significant if you shoot as much as the typical high-end amateur or pro. I share your enthusiasm for the D1 (and Nikons in general), and photo.net is a great resource. |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Saturday April 22, @08:17PM EST (#363) (User Info) |
| "Second, traditional cameras, are likely to be just as fragile as a digital camera, except that they have more moving parts (shutter screens, rollers, etc.) that can seize up over time. I certainly wouldn't take this into consideration when buying a camera though -- unless I knew it was going to be handled rough." Digital cameras certain _can_ be made less fragile than traditional cameras, and some models are. But the vast majority of cheap and midrange digitals out there are easier to break than cheap and midrange traditional cameras, and cost more to replace. One point you didn't bring up in support of your point, by the way: "Most shops will allow you to shoot a roll (or, I guess, a flash card?) if you give them collateral, or know them well. If not, ask to shoot a few in the store." In the case of digital cameras, this doesn't cost them, or you, a dime. You can try out every digital camera in the store without having to buy 100 rolls of film. This gives the truly discerning consumer a lot more power. Anyway, my conclusion is the same: One day, digital cameras will push traditional cameras into a niche, but not yet. no .sig, no slogan |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by MochaMan on Sunday April 23, @11:34AM EST (#431) (User Info) |
| Anyway, my conclusion is the same: One day, digital cameras will push traditional cameras into a niche, but not yet. I agree 100% with you there. The average consumer has no need for gigantic enlargements, and wants a no fuss point-and-shoot camera. There are always going to be a few people (namely professional photographers and enthusiasts) who want a film-based camera. Digital cameras are high enough quality now for a lot of newspaper shooting, but I would never consider taking extremely low-light pictures (CCD noise tends to be quite nasty on long exposures, or enhancements of low light shots, unless you have a bucket of liquid nitrogen handy like they do at observatories). But most people don't take pictures with large areas of black or in low light (unless they have a flash). Anyway, the unfortunate end result is that film cameras will likely rise in price as they become less and less popular. I hope not... |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Tuesday April 25, @05:44PM EST (#457) (User Info) |
| Don't fret; I'm guessing things will go the same way they've gone in other fields: a fire-sale period, a drought, and then a new equilibrium that's not far from the original. Look at turntables. After a couple of years of vinyl being declared "dead," you could find turntables for a third of their old price, record pressing equipment for a fifth--and records that were marked at $10 were in the 50 cent bin. DJ's had a field day. Then came the backlash. Vinyl was cool. Suddenly, the only turntables being manufactured were high-end DJ decks, ultra-high-end audiophile equipment, and ultra-low-end throwaway trash, and people were selling used Technics 1200's for more than list price. The end result? A dozen new companies got into the business. The top-end models are still slightly more expensive than they were a decade ago, but there are decent turntables available for $100-$150, far better than anything in that price range in the old days. And where there used to be only one decent cartridge for under $50, there are now dozens of options. Sometimes the free market actually works.... Of course in the case of turntables, consumables are much less of an issue--a cartridge lasts a lot longer than a roll of film. So when the crash comes, stock up on film. But don't worry about the cameras and lenses. no .sig, no slogan |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by fwr (fwr@ga.prestige.net) on Saturday April 22, @10:03AM EST (#115) (User Info) |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by payn (paynFALCOnullFALCOnet) on Saturday April 22, @08:13PM EST (#361) (User Info) |
| OK, summarizing the replies: A cheap ($300) digital camera is (almost) as good as a cheap ($50) analog camera. A professional ($25000) digital camera is (almost) as good as a professional ($1500) analog camera. I think that proves my point. The price-performance just isn't there yet. And you can get a set of prints made from your memory stick or floppy just as you can from your 35, you just might have to drive a little farther and pay a little more. Of course the consumables are higher for analog cameras--especially if your end goal is images on the computer. This especially true in the middle range, where someone's going to be spending either $800 for an analog camera or $1000 for a digital camera, and the savings in film will make a huge difference. But the kind of person who buys a FunShot disposable is not going to switch to digitals until the $5 digital disposable that the next poster mentioned is available. And the kind of person who takes pictures that are meant to be used as magazine covers isn't going to switch to digital until they're as good, as flexible, and much cheaper than $25,000. Eventually, digital cameras will provide better price-performance than anything in the analog realm, and the majority of people will switch. Of course even then, traditional cameras will have their place. However, its place will be a niche. Digital video may replace 1" video (much less VHS), but people will always keep using film; newer digital audio formats may eliminate CDs and MDs and DATs, but records will always be there. And in the future, traditional cameras will occupy a similar niche to film and vinyl. no .sig, no slogan |
| Consumables... (Score:1) by BandSaw on Saturday April 22, @09:25PM EST (#370) (User Info) |
| While I am in favor of "early adopter" people buying digital cameras because it's good for the economy, a digital camera cost more to operate over the long run, if you make even a few paper prints. I paid 2.63 to develop and print 24exp of 35mm at Sams Club. 12 rolls of 24exp 35mm film (fuji) cost about $4 after the $8 fuji rebate. So I pay, what, 18c a picture, printed 4"x6" A sheet of high quality paper for an inkjet costs about a dollar. How much is the ink to print it - 25c? And the cost of the inkjet printer itself? Then add the cost of losing or damaging (sitting on) one of the tiny memory sticks. Then there is the cost of batteries for the digital camera.. It uses a lot more than a manual SLR. The batteries are rechargable, you say.. Ok, how many people have rechargable stuff that won't hold a charge anymore? (no pushing now, you'll all get counted ;^) and getting new ones isn't cheap. And the kicker.. You need a computer to even see the pictures you took last month. What? your system ate itself and you had no backup? Yes, I know you meant to burn them to CD but never had time since the baby came. And your baby pictures are now gone forever? Bummer! I'm sure your SO will forgive you. [NOT] ;^) Linux, of course. Why? |
| Re:Why not? (Score:1) by jamesl on Saturday April 22, @04:40PM EST (#317) (User Info) |
| And VHS will probably never replace Super Eight for all the same reasons. |
| Nikon Coolpix (Score:3, Interesting) by Night Stalker on Saturday April 22, @08:47AM EST (#12) (User Info) |
| I bought the Nikon Coolpix 950 several months ago and I love it! I used to use a couple of SLR 35mm Camera's but now I don't think I will EVER give up my digital. If you've ever used an all manual SLR 35mm camera, the Nikon Coolpix 950 gives you the ability to adjust everything on it, from manual focus, shutter speed, aperture, style of autofocus, flash types, and the list is practically endless. Some of my favorite features are the "Best Shot Selection" where it takes 10 pictures of the same thing then chooses which one is of higher quality. It uses the compact flash cards and there are tons of adapters, serial, usb, laptop. You can also buy seperate lenses for Telephoto, Wideangle, and Fisheye. Has support for external flashes also. If you're willing to shell out some heavy money on a high quality camera...this is it! |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix 950 (Score:2) by Tony Shepps (anton@NOSPAMcatalystinternet.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:21AM EST (#137) (User Info) http://www.zerodefect.net/anton |
| I too have the 950 and it kicks serious butt. With the 990 coming out any day now, a lot of the folks who want to always have the latest and greatest are going to be selling their 950s in the next few months. Watch the used market and pick up a camera that can do everything. |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix (Score:2) by mattdm (mattdm@mattdm.org) on Saturday April 22, @12:14PM EST (#220) (User Info) http://quotes-r-us.org/ |
| I agree. I got this camera last summer, and I'm still extremely happy with it. The Best Shot Selection feature is great for taking pictures in low light without a flash or a tripod. -- |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix (Score:1) by api on Saturday April 22, @01:08PM EST (#255) (User Info) |
| Now that the 950 can be had for $750, down from its original price of $1200, it is a great value. The soon-to-be-released $1000 990 promises to be a significant upgrade, pushing the 950's to as low as $500 or $600, making it a perfect backup to your 990. (Or D1 for that matter for professional work.) Note that while odd looking, the 9X0's are small enough to keep with you in the field and do not draw too much attention. This is good, especially if travelling. There optional use of TIFF over JPEG is excellent for professional use. The same goes for Compact Flash - it doesn't suffer the forward compatibility problems that "SmartMedia" has, doesn't have big exposed contacts and is often available in larger sizes. Its close relation to PCMCIA makes it overall more seamless, especially with a laptop. The 990 puts the CF slot on the side, allowing the camera to stay on a tripod... USB could be good... If nose-bleed resolution is not needed and you need Digital Audio and Video capture, consider the Sony TRV-900 DV camera. It is progressive scan, 3 chip with a larger lens and has a PCMCIA slot for still capture. If 640X480 will do, it offers great images and includes excellent DV and CD-quality audio capture. It's expensive at around $2000 but a DAT plus a 950 plus a DV camera costs much more. I'm glad I waited for the 990... Now one only needs a CompactFlash compatible MP3 player and the TRG Pro Palm device, which also has a CF slot. Gadget Porn. M |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix (Score:2) by jetpack (wrgcnpx@ubhfgba.ee.pbz) on Saturday April 22, @02:49PM EST (#292) (User Info) |
| I got one of these cameras a few months back, and I agree. It's very nice. However, the next in the series has been announced (980?) for release in a month or two. From what I can tell, it's solved a few of the complaints most people have about the 950. Nameley, they've done some sorta upgrad to the battery and flashcard ports so they arent as easily broken. It's been a while since I read the reviews on it, but there were a couple other nice fixes, IIRC. Also, the newer model has all the features of the 950, but adds MPEG capture! Dunno if it's actually any good, but it might be an interesting capabability to have around. One feature you didnt mention, is that along with BestShot, there is a continuous shot mode that will just keep snapping shots and storing them until you let go of the shutter button or you run out of memory. My only gripes with the camera are as follows: no way to attach the lense cover to the camera when your remove it (I've already lost mine ... I suspect one of the cats decided to play with it) and the LCD isnt bright enough if you are outdoors (even on cloudy days). Mind you, there are very few digital cameras that handle that very well. One other thing I feel compelled to point out. This is a camera made for taking "real" pictures, not snapshots. Sure, you can set it up for taking snapshots, but if you havent done so before hand, subjects have a tendancy to get a bit annoyed while you fiddle with the settings. While discussing this with a friend of mine, we came to the conclusion that if you are mostly just going to take snapshots to publish on the web or email to your friends, this camera is overkill. So, we decided, the optimal solution is to have two cameras: something like the coolpix for "serious" photos where you need high image quality, and a point-and-click camera for snapping pix at the company BBQ, birthday parties at the local pub, etc. It's not that you *can't* do both with the coolpix, it's just a bit inconvenient. And even the "cheap" cameras are a few hundred bux, so it's not in everones budget. The coolpix is also also much bulkier than the less expensive point-and-click models which makes it a bit of a drag to carry around while you are playing pool with your local IRC friends. BTW, gphoto (linux app - dunno if it's ported to other OSes) supports the coolpix line, altho it's a bit (ahem) buggy. run my email address through rot13 |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix 990 (Score:1) by Omega Hacker (omega@cse.ogi.edu) on Saturday April 22, @04:04PM EST (#309) (User Info) http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~omega/ |
If you're willing to wait about a month and spend about $1000, get the Coolpix 990. According to every review I've read, it dropkicks even my 950 into the next county. 3.3 megapixels, so images of 2048x1536. More features, better features, etc (all reviews are of preproduction camers, so few real details yet). Has USB, but one major problem is that all the reviews say that it does not have a CF Type II slot. Big mistake, since all the big cards (224MB flash, 340MB microdrive, etc.) are in Type II format (which is a millimeter thicker), and you're going to be shooting 9.5MB raw images! (or 1.xMB high-quality JPEGs, better get that 8x CF card...) Oh, and the Coolpix 9x0 just looks cool. |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix- $100 rebate (Score:1) by cfish on Saturday April 22, @06:50PM EST (#343) (User Info) |
| http://www.nikonusa.com/assets/coolpix950rebateform.pdf well it saves youy $100 bucks. that can't be bad. and, an extra plug.http://www.mobshop.com/washingtonpost/cycles?cycle_id=240545 with promo code CWORKS to get 20% discount. coolpix 800 ain't bad either. |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix (Score:1) by BitGeek on Sunday April 23, @01:37AM EST (#401) (User Info) |
| I have a Nikon Coolpix 900. I am going to buy the 990 when it comes out. Here's what I like abou tthe Coolpix: 1. It takes better pictures than film cameras! Yes, the resolution is lower, but the image quality, color quality, exposure, etc, is far better than I have ever gotten with a film camera. The software in the camera picks the best settings and even in poor situations (shooting into the sun, or north of the arctic circle, etc) the camera takes great images. I have never, in my life, gotten a satisfactory sunset picture until this camera! 2. The form factor is the most innovative I've seen. IT looks odd and feels odd the first couple of days, but when you get used to it you can't imagine the constraints of going back to an SLR. You are only so tall- so being able to hold the camera over your head, or in a corner in a tight area in order to get the perspective you want for a picture and still be able to see what you're going to get to frame the shot is really wonderful. 3. Nikon made great choices on technology. A digital camera is like a laptop- you have to choose well and compromise without compromising the product. If you buy rechargable NiMh batteries and a large compact flash card you have a great system. 4. This camera is so much better than a film camera-- I get a lot more shots than I could with film and you will be surprised at how convenient it is not to have to reload film at inoportune times (like taking pictures of orcas that only surface periodically!) Plus, this camera gives you great shots right away to email to mom... no waiting for film to be developed. I mean, if your goal is to hang a picture on your wall, the better resolution of a film camera is an advantage-- but I think most people, and certainly me, would rather have all their picutres in the digital domain. I have never regretted this purchase, and I haven't bothered to use a film camera since- expect for once when I forgot the Coolpix and I really missed it! BitGeek To the rational mind there can be no offense, no obscenity, no blasphemy, but only information of greater or lesser value. -- Jennifer Diane Reitz |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix (Score:1) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @08:09AM EST (#423) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| > I have never, in my life, gotten a satisfactory sunset picture until this camera! Let me guess, you just pointed at the sun/horizon and pushed the button, yes? You should try pointing at a different spot in the sky, one with a more 'average' brightness. Then push the button halfway to lock the metering, point at the sun, and click. That way you sunsets will contain more than just black silhouettes. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Re:Nikon Coolpix (Score:1) by merlyn (merlyn@stonehenge.com) on Sunday April 23, @08:19AM EST (#424) (User Info) http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ |
| I agree. The Coolpix 950 is a great camera (coming from someone who has done a lot a video and a lot of still shots in a previous life). See literally thousands of examples of my shooting at my picture archive. |
| Kodak DC280 works great with Linux (Score:3, Informative) by jammcq on Saturday April 22, @08:47AM EST (#13) (User Info) |
| I recently picked up the Kodak DC280. It lists for $699, but I got it from Buy.com for $499. It has Compact Flash, Serial and USB. If you install the USB patches for the 2.2.14 kernel, it works with Linux. gPhoto supports it really well, and you can take the compact flash card, put it in a pcmcia adapter and pop it into your notebook to get the pictures that way. The resolution is something like 1700x1100 and the pictures look great. |
| Re:Kodak DC280 works great with Linux (Score:2) by FauxPasIII (fauxpas@cc.gatech.dont.spam.me.edu) on Saturday April 22, @08:51AM EST (#19) (User Info) |
| I have a Kodak DC210+ zoom. It's the last camera in the DC200 series to use the serial port. It works wonderfully with linux as well. |
| Re:Kodak DC280 works great with Linux (Score:1) by sparx on Saturday April 22, @09:02AM EST (#36) (User Info) |
| I recently bought a DC280 as well. It's my first digital camera so I don't have much to compare it against but I have been amazed with the quality of the photographs it takes. Plus it comes with Adobe Photoshop which is pretty good with touching up photographs. It's 2.1 megapixel and cost me $599. |
| Re:Kodak DC280 and Kodak DC290 (Score:1) by trakwebster (trakwebster@traktor.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:14AM EST (#60) (User Info) http://www.traktor.com |
| I needed to photograph some musical instruments for a website, and occasional snaps of folks while travelling, as well as some close-up how-to photos -- all for the web. ZDNet had an article showing pix made by different cameras, and of all the pix there, I thought the Kodak DC280 looked crisp and good color tone. (Admittedly, this may relate a lot to the flash and other factors, but it's all I had to go on.) So I bought one for $599, and along with some lights and experimentation, it's done fine for the web. It does *not* even compare in total quality to my old Minolta 35mm, and I'd like the DC280 better if it gave me more control over aperature/speed, and a spot-focus -- but it is adequate for the task. Kodak has come out with a slightly more expensive DC290 which appears to have more features, but whether it takes better pix, I don't know. == buddha is as buddha does == |
| DC240 is pretty nifty too (Score:1) by Greyjack on Saturday April 22, @09:18AM EST (#68) (User Info) http://www.greyjack.com |
| The DC240 is pretty dang smooth as well--got one for my folks for Christmas last year. 1280x960, USB, serial, compact flash, etc. The Mavicas, while the floppy stuff is kinda handy, are sort of big and clunky to hold. While the floppy storage is kind of neat, a single floppy doesn't really hold *that* much; a 32MB (or larger) compact flash chip holds a shitload of pics. And, for this sort of device, the fewer moving parts the better, I'm inclined to think; I've seen enough cheap-ass floppy drives go bad in PC's that I get a little cagey about having one in a $600 digital camera. (Yes, I imagine Sony's got some pretty good hardward in there, but still). Overall, from the admittedly limited experience I've had with 'em, the Kodaks are pretty swanky. The DC240 product page |
| Re:Kodak DC280 works great with Linux (Score:1) by jjohnson (hansel@well.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:22AM EST (#75) (User Info) |
| As someone else said, the Kodak DC210+ (which I bought a year ago) is a great camera. Megapixel, optical and digital zoom, CompactFlash... it's replaced my brother's $2000 super-automated Japanese camera with no one noticing. His girlfried and her two year old live with us, and I'm the designated photographer for all events; the pictures I take go on a fairly simple website that the rest of the family loves. No one has cared that we no longer have physical prints of these shots - my parents bought a color printer for that. Where can I get good info on hooking this thing up to my laptop? I'm running RH6.0. I also bought the Sandisk CompactFlash unit, which makes download time much faster than over the serial cable. Any links would be appreciated. Never attribute to an -ism anything more simply explained by common, human stupidity. |
| Yes, but what color? (Score:1) by dgenr8 on Saturday April 22, @11:20AM EST (#194) (User Info) |
| Kodak has followed Apple's lead and started offering cameras in different colors like blueberry, tangerine, lime, etc... |
| Re:Kodak DC280 works great with Linux (Score:2) by lordsutch (lawrencc@debian.org (Chris Lawrence)) on Saturday April 22, @06:39PM EST (#337) (User Info) http://www.linux-m68k.org/ |
| I've been really happy with my DC280 ($525 at Buy.com about 6 months ago)... it comes with nice, rechargable NiMH batteries (and the charger too), so it has everything you need except the case and the PCMCIA adapter (the latter can be had for ~$10 if you need it). I hadn't touched my 35mm in years, but now I'm taking photos all the time. I like the video out feature too; it's nice when you want to show pictures to people and the laptop isn't handy. Coupled with my HP Photosmart 1100 printer (with CF slot), you have a nice little digital photography setup. Now only if Linux supported all the 1100's features (2-sided printing, high resolution, reading CF cards over the parallel cable)... Linux CDs; Elect Me. Sela Ward can sell me long distance any time. |
| Re:Kodak DC280 works great with Linux (Score:1) by sigsegv (sigsegv@PLEASENOSPAM.psinet.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:01PM EST (#366) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/shakabuku |
| i must agree. i'm _very_ happy with my dc280. good resolution, nice features, good size. really nice pictures. for some examples, check out my pictures page; the honeymoon pics are the best (no, no pictures like _that_ =;). mind you, i had to crunch these pictures down a lot with mogrify (from the ImageMagick package) and i'm not that great of a photographer, but they really turned out great. i'm so much more into picture taking now. i'm very happy with the 280, but i do wish it had a little better optical zoom (it's 2x optical, 3x digital -- ie. software zoom, yick). i also wish you could adjust its "exposure" and "film" speed a little beter. i also really like our hp deskjet 970cse. hp says it's the same printer as the ps1100 without the compact flash/smart media interface; the print engine is the same (and quite nice at that). from buy.com, the price is excellent for what you're getting. i am really curious to see what the 280's successor will be.... maybe my wife would like the 280... hmmmm..... =8] if anybody wants to ask me any questions about this camera, i'd be glad to try to help. just write me at the above address. (of course, remove the obvious "PLEASENOSPAM." part) --pete |
| any waterproof digital cameras? (Score:1) by eap (rnc@argqbbe.pbz) on Saturday April 22, @08:48AM EST (#14) (User Info) http://www2.netdoor.com/~eap/reunion |
| I'm thinking of getting a digital camera, but I want one that duplicates the functionality and durability of my Canon Sure Shot A1. This camera is waterPROOF, and can actually take underwater photos. It is great for things like canoe trips and such, where sand and water would kill a regular camera. If I could find a similar waterproof digital P&S, I might consider buying it. Does anyone know if these exist (for a reasonable price)? |
| Yes there is (Score:1) by jonr (si.xetrov@rnoj) on Saturday April 22, @09:42AM EST (#90) (User Info) http://www.vortex.is/~jonr/ |
| I'm not sure if you want a camere for underwater job (Olympus has a case for the C2000/3000 range) but Fuji makes one, the DS-260HD "Big Job", it is supposed to be water (splash?) proof and sand proof. J. |
| Re:any waterproof digital cameras? (Score:2, Informative) by kwsNI (e-mail.me@www.dialug.org) on Saturday April 22, @09:54AM EST (#105) (User Info) http://www.dialug.org |
| It really depends on how much you consider a reasonable price and how waterproof you want it. As a serious scuba diver, I can tell you that there are NO fully waterproof digital cameras on the market right now. By waterproof, I'm talking something waterproof to at least 100 ft (30m). Your best bet if you're wanting a waterproof camera for this depth is to go with a Nikonos camera from Nikon or a digital camera with a waterproof case from Ikelite. Just be warned, a new Nikonos camera will run you $500+ (It's a 35mm, not digital - I know...) and a decent digital camera with a U/W housing will run about $500-$1000 for the camera and another $750 for the housing. Finally, sand-proof and waterproof do not go together very well. In order to make them waterproof, cameras use O-rings to keep the water out. Sand is very hard on the O-rings and can cause them to leak if you get sand on them. If you're going to have your waterproof camera in the sand, make sure you clean all of the seals to remove any pieces of sand from the seals... Well, I'm sure I've probably given you too much info because it sounds like you're only using it in shallow water. As I said, I haven't heard of any watertight digital cameras, but keep your eyes out in the future... |
| Re:any waterproof digital cameras? (Score:1) by kren2000 on Sunday April 23, @12:15PM EST (#433) (User Info) http://www.gpsy.com |
| I've taken my Olympus 400Z down to 120' in the North Carolina waters with its polycarbonate housing. Works like a champ and got some great wreck photos and shark shots. No floods yet and the 400/450 is cheap enough that even if it does flood, I'm only 25% of the cost down to a used Nikonos. Karen -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GAT d-- a? C++ UX+ L++ P++ E--- W+++$ N++ o-- !K !w O---- M++$ !V PS++ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5++ X++ R- tv+ b++ DI++ D+ |
| Sony videocams (Score:1) by bartyboy on Saturday April 22, @08:49AM EST (#15) (User Info) http://www.nerdyboy.com |
| The newer digital Handycams have a jack in the camera that connects to your parallel or serial port. You can then transfer the images from the camera to your computer without any special capture board. There are two settings for the picture quality (High and Low) so you can take pictures with slightly higher resolution than the video captures. I'm not sure of the [resolution] numbers, but I'm betting that you won't get the quality you can expect from the higher-end digital cameras. The other advantage I can think of is storage space - a standard 8mm tape fits an hour of digital information (each picture takes approximately seven seconds on tape; there's also a rewritable memory chip that you can store the pictures on for fast retreival). And, if you get bored with taking pictures, you can always go film stuff. Just something to ponder. Cheers, Bart |
| SuperDisk camera??? (Score:2) by crow on Saturday April 22, @08:50AM EST (#16) (User Info) http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~crow/ |
| Sony makes the floppy-based cameras. What about cameras that use the 120Meg SuperDisk? Then you could choose between high-capacity or cheap media (take pictures of your friends and hand them the disk). It seems so obvious; why don't I see them in stores? (Or what about Zip disks or even hard drives?) I've heard rumors of a camera that uses MiniDisc being marketed only in Japan; is that true? |
| Re:SuperDisk camera??? (Score:1) by Mwongozi (mwongozi at mwongozi dot net) on Saturday April 22, @08:57AM EST (#32) (User Info) http://www.mwongozi.net/ |
Panasonic make a SuperDi sk digital camera, which also takes regular floppy discs and can also be connected to your PC via USB. Here's the good bit: when connected to your PC it becomes a SuperDisk drive! |
| Re:SuperDisk camera??? (Score:2) by Randy Rathbun (rathbun@spamcop.net) on Saturday April 22, @04:11PM EST (#311) (User Info) http://rrr.dhs.org |
| Yes, there is a MD camera. There are a bunch of links, so I suggest checking out this page at minidisc.org. Zip disks are a bit on the "too big" side, but there is the Iomega clik! - there is a thing to hook it up to digital cams, but I have have no idea what it does. I do recall seeing a device that was a hard drive that would work with most cameras. The drive would hold 99 rolls of "film". You hooked up the camera, started the device up, and it would pull the pictures off. It did not work with all cameras, but it would work with most of them. As for the Superdisk, have you ever used one? It is the slowest damn thing I have ever seen in my life. I have CONSIDERABLY more bandwidth than YOU! |
| Dig Cam (Score:1) by AphexZero on Saturday April 22, @08:51AM EST (#18) (User Info) |
| I just picked up an Olympus D-460. It's just like the 450, which was getting rave reviews, but it's got a better menuing system, and some other small improvements. I'm really happy with it, but I will admit that although I got it for a little over 500, which I could afford, I was immediately unhappy with the serial support that it came with, and bought a flashpath floppy adapter for the flash card, which cost another 100. If I'm done spending, I'm happy. If not, I guess I'm a bit weirded out |
| Re:Dig Cam (Score:1) by SsC (ssc (at) pobox (dot) com) on Saturday April 22, @11:12AM EST (#183) (User Info) |
| I've got the D-450 Zoom, and I agree: the menuing system will drive you nuts, especially if you put it down for a couple weeks... as you tend to forget. I also got sick of waiting for pictures coming over the serial line, so went back and bought the Flashpath adapter... this is way cool. I learned of the 460 yesterday. I wish I had waited a few months, but oh well. What I can't tell, is how much different *is* the menuing? Olympus' site doesn't give a diagram or anything, and nobody else has details. I guess I'll have to drop by the store someday and check one out. The images are good though, and printing them out on photo paper on a Deskjet 880 series printer at the best settings yields a useable picture... even if it's not as good as a traditional camera. My wife and I are happy with it. -- Wanted: A way to learn regexp's by osmosis while sleeping... |
| Olympus 450Z [Was:Re:Dig Cam] (Score:1) by IronChef on Saturday April 22, @11:15AM EST (#187) (User Info) http://wrongcrowd.com/ |
| I have the Olympus 450Z and I can attest that it is a great camera. I was lucky enough to get it when Value America was having that wacky $150-off promotion, so it ended up being about $390 all told... It has good exposure controls -- not pro level, but a cut above cheap digicams. This was important to me. I think it should be important to you too, because if all the metering is automatic there will be some shots you *can't* get. For example, a shot of someone in the shadows where the background is bright. You need to switch to spot metering for that, not average. It has a good lens and a 3x optical zoom. There is some barrel distortion, but most cameras in this price range suffer from that. I got a 32MB SmartMedia card for mine. (it comes with an 8mb card.) In 640x480 mode I can store almost 500 photos. IMHO this mode stinks, the compression artifacts are obvious. In "HQ" mode, you get about 140 1280x1024 photos. Good quality shots here, no glaring artifacts. SHQ mode is even less compression, also at 1280x1024. About 70 shots here. This is what I use all the time. There is also an uncompressed mode, but SHQ is good enough that I don't use it. There is 1 use for 640x480 -- burst mode. You can shoot about 2 frames per second. Good for capturing some stuff and making it into animated gifs. (oh hell, I said gif. Now I am screwed...) There is a panorama shot mode, which works very well. Pretty cool. On the subject of adapters: I recently bought a SmartMedia to PCMCIA adapter. It's the BEST. No more of that lame, SLOW serial connection. Taking an hour to dump a full load of photos was getting annoying! I got my SM to PCMCIA adapter at www.18004memory.com. They aren't the brightest crew over there, at first they sent me a CF to PCMCIA card and I had to RMA it. But I stuck with it because the SM adapter was $40 from them, which is the best price I have found in a year of looking. (was too cheap to buy one for $80-90) ---- 2 wrongs don't make a right. It usually takes 3 or 4. |
| Sony Mavica (Score:2, Insightful) by tsangc on Saturday April 22, @08:52AM EST (#20) (User Info) http://peach.mie.utoronto.ca/people/tsangc |
| I'm very happy with our Sony Mavicas as well, but it really depends on what you do and who will use the camera-every camera will tradeoff certain features so the best fit depends for every use: We bought Mavicas because want wanted students to use them for projects: A CF or SmartMedia camera would be impossible to implement. Floppies are great because every student has them. They're also large, unattractive and have really long lasting batteries which fit perfectly for institutional use. On the downside, they cost three times more than most 1Kx7 cameras and the image quality isn't as great as other comparable models. But it's a perfect fit for us. So before you go off talking about what's the best camera recommendation, ask what camera fits for your application... |
| Re:Sony Mavica (Score:1) by Hal_9000@!!!@ (jdgjspgjhsLFslcfjslkdjdksgjgkldgjsdkjdsgklsdgiksdh) on Saturday April 22, @10:21AM EST (#138) (User Info) |
| We also picked up a Mavica for Educational use. It works great. My Mavica has the MPEG video (5, 10, or 15 secornd), 4x (?) floppy access, great quality, and small batteries that last a long time. Teachers with no tech experience are amazed by how easy it is to use. It also, because it doesn't need a TWAIN or comparable interface, and it saves pictures as JPEG and video as MPEG, it is cross-platform compatable (i.e. good for Linux). A Mavica without MPEG video costs about $500, and with MPEG video is $700. [Office Use Only] |
| Sony Mavica (Score:1) by kwsNI (e-mail.me@www.dialug.org) on Saturday April 22, @08:52AM EST (#21) (User Info) http://www.dialug.org |
| Personally, I'm using a Sony Mavica camera. They are a little pricey (the mid-range cameras run from $550 to $900) but they have done a pretty good job for me. They work very well in low-light, they have some built in special effects (I like the option to take black and white photos on the camera) and they have a 2.5" LCD screen on the back of the camera (Fairly standard except on the really cheap cameras). It can also take up to a minute of MPG movies in the lowest resolution mode. The best thing about them though is that they store pictures on 3.5" floppy disks (it has a 4x drive so it's pretty fast). |
| Sony, Sony, Sony.... (Score:3, Informative) by Colm@TCD (colm at tuatha.org) on Saturday April 22, @08:52AM EST (#22) (User Info) http://www.tuatha.org/~colm/ |
| The Sony Cybershot cameras are unquestionably the best I've ever encountered. The DSC-F505 CEE has a 2.1Mpixel CCD (1600x1200), a superb lens, great optical zoom, and good upload capabilities. It's pricey, but worth every penny. Some information is here. |
| NoSony, NoSony, NoSony.... (Score:1) by twixel on Saturday April 22, @09:43AM EST (#91) (User Info) |
| And bad battery life: it works an hour and then it drops dead. It won't save images without compression. No CompactFlash (Memorystick is a SONY proprietary format == more expensive and harder to find than CF ,and of course a nice Sony lock-in effect) Sony isn't well known for releasing specs either. So under Linux, you are limited to serial transfer.
|
| Re:Sony, Sony, Sony.... (Score:1) by Longing (slashdotatderek'sdotnet) on Saturday April 22, @10:03AM EST (#116) (User Info) |
| Sonys are okay, but lack basic controls (aperature, etc.) that are available on the Nikon CoolPix 950/990 and the Olympus C-2000Z and C-2020Z. It's still a decent camera (I have one), but it takes -a long time- to startup, -a long time- between shots (especially if you're using the flash), the battery only lasts an hour, and the 4MB memory stick is laughable. Fine for web stuff. |
| Re:Sony, Sony, Sony.... (Score:1) by Ezzelin (ezzelin@softhome.net?subject=slashdot) on Saturday April 22, @09:20PM EST (#369) (User Info) |
| Can't emphasize this enough... don't let Sony strong-arm their own proprietary format into the market. Why would I want to buy one of their cameras when I have invested in Compactflash? More importantly, why can't Sony support a standard? Why didn't they use Compactflash or Smartmedia? Or, like Olympus does in it's newest camera, both? Money is the only reason I can think of. Problem is, it doesn't work. Look at the whole Betamax vs. VHS case. Betamax was Sony's format, and while technically superior, it lost out to VHS because of Sony's unwillingness to play nice. Problem is, in this situation, that Sony doesn't even have a better product! In fact, they have in inferior product! Enough said. |
| features (Score:1) by hangdog (sckline@gte.net) on Saturday April 22, @08:54AM EST (#25) (User Info) |
I have a HP C30. Bought it last year. It of course is outdated now, but I have been very happy with it so far. Some features to keep in mind while searching for a digital camera:
|
| Powershot From Canon (Score:1) by mclearn (aa627 AT chebucto DOT ns DOT ca) on Saturday April 22, @08:55AM EST (#26) (User Info) http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~glmclear |
| I have been looking for a DC for quite some time, however, the technology seems to be changing just as fast as computers do. The question is do you really need a zillion mega-pixel resolution, when half of that will suffice? I was stuck in the mode where I "wanted the best", but of course, for the price of the "best" you can buy a small farm of Linux machines... I really did have my eye on the Powershot S10 from Canon. It had a 2.1 MP resolution, with a wide array of features that I think I would use...However, I am still waiting for the S20 to drive the price of the S10 down a bit... ARGH. In any case, I found Megapixel to be an invaluable resource when doing comparisons. They seem to have it together. Advice I can offer (that I was offered during my search):
I could go on, but you're likely to find a lot of useful advice from more experienced photographers; or those with a recent purchase. -- Greg |
| Re:Powershot From Canon (Score:1) by Z00100 (spamthis@evilbastards.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:08AM EST (#44) (User Info) http://www.exacomp.com |
| I own a Powershot S10. It's a VERY good camera. The only problem I find with it are.... 1. Short battery life (get the rechargable pak option) 2. Very small (8mb) bundled CF (Compact Flash) card. 3. Minimal Zoom. 4. CF trap door feels chintzy for such an expensive camera. Other than those 4 gripes, it's an excellent camera and takes superb quality pictures. It is truly a nice camera. It's small, light, and takes snaps real easily without much fuss. It has a USB interface, so transferring pics is a joy. For those who have no USB, it also comes with a serial connection. It really is a full featured camera. The LCD also refreshes quite fast, and is very bright, and the colors on the LCD are indicative of the actual pic. All in all, I say it's a good buy for the first time digi-cam user. |
| Re:Powershot From Canon (Score:1) by Bilestoad on Saturday April 22, @11:44AM EST (#204) (User Info) |
| I have the Powershot S20, from Yodabashi in Shinjuku - easy to find, just follow the annoying jingle. Close to the big T-zone. It's my second Powershot, the first was an A50, now in the hands of a grateful friend. I liked the A50 a lot, especially with a 48M CF card and the Canon rechargable battery kit (get this - 2CR5 cells get expensive, and you'll go through a lot. Who wants to turn that beautiful LCD off and save power?). It was rugged, easy to use and produced great pictures. My big complaint was that it was SLOW. I missed some good shots waiting for my camera to turn on, and reviewing images on the LCD was always an exercise in patience. The S20 fixes the speed problem and adds some ease of use. Instead of just left and right buttons it has a 4-way gameboy style controller (but not so cheap looking). Flipping between images is almost instant now. Also if you turned the camera off while the LCD was switched on, the LCD will wake up when you next turn it on - the A50 required turning it on manually every time. The menus are better, and settings appear as icons in both LCDs, so there is no need to look away from the image to see if you remembered to turn macro on. My method of getting the images from the camera is via a SanDisk USB CF reader - this is also highly recommended. I don't use the supplied cables or software, the software is in Japanese and I don't read that yet. I don't think there is much between the top end in digital cameras right now. All cost too much, and many have good processing speeds with >3 Mpixels. For me it comes down to look and feel, especially since I don't use the supplied software or cables. The Powershot is rectangular, slighly gold in color, a solid-feeling metal construction and is easy to slip into a pocket, the lens retracts fully so there is nothing left sticking out. I have a leather pouch that used to belong to a Leica Minilux and it's almost a perfect fit for the camera + a spare CF (available from any Leica dealer; around $40). In comparison I find the shape of the Kodak a bit weird, and the Kyocera VERY weird, and the swivelly lens of the Coolpix looks hard to use and carry. The Camedia has a big lens sticking out and the new Sony is all lens and no body. All good cameras, but none as easy to just pick up and use as my Canon. I'd buy it again, for sure. In short it's the Palm Pilot of digital cameras. Others may have more features, but it does what it was made to do simply and well.
|
| Olymous C2020 Zoom (Score:1) by jathos on Saturday April 22, @08:55AM EST (#28) (User Info) |
| I bought an Olympus C2020 last month and have been extremely happy with it. It takes pics at 1600x1200, has a 3x Optical Zoom, and has all the settings (aperture control, white balance, manual focus) that a real shutterbug (not a poser like me) would want in a camera. It uses SmartMedia, which is a tiny plastic card with a smart chip on it. The camera only comes with an 8MB card, but I bought an additional 32MB card for less than $50. I also bought a USB SanDisk SmartMedia reader for $25. All in all, you can't go wrong with this camera. It's small and light, and my Renewal rechargable batteries last for 100s of pictures. The price may be a bit high for some people, but I easily found some coupons for Accompany.com that gave me 20% off, lowering the price to under $500. A friend just recently bought the same camera from mobshop.com with a 20% off coupon. It also was under $500. |
| Casio QV-3000 3.3Mpix, holds 236 pics list $1k (Score:1) by bobalu on Saturday April 22, @08:56AM EST (#29) (User Info) |
| I just read some ads for this new Casio with an IBM hard-drive in it, sounded pretty good. 3.3M pixels gives a 2048x1536 (or close) picture resolution, and they said it had an IBM micro-drive that would hold 236 pics (maybe not at high-res). USB, etc. And it looks like a real camera too. Digital cameras have a ways to go before they can really beat std cameras on quality, but this is one I'm tempted to get. The revolution will NOT be televised. |
| Re:Casio QV-3000 3.3Mpix, holds 236 pics list $1k (Score:3, Informative) by Czakari (sdot at very dot strange dot com) on Saturday April 22, @04:50PM EST (#322) (User Info) |
| A couple months ago I picked up the Olympus C2500-L and returned it two weeks later because the CCD noise was rather bad (and for $1200, I wanted *no* CCD noise). Even for an SLR, 2.5Mpixels wasn't very impressive for the money. Then... I bought a Casio QV-3000EX Plus about 4 weeks ago and have taken something like 400 pictures with it, most of them in the camera's undocumented and unsupported TIFF format -- each pic is 6MB, compared to up to 1.5MB for the JPEGs it takes at 7:1 compression (ew!). Okay, so you only get 56 shots before the microdrive is full and it takes 20 seconds to process each shot (1-2 seconds for the JPEGs, if that long)... and most graphics programs won't read these TIFFs (IrFanView does; ImageMagick does; I imagine GIMP will too; PhotoShop does NOT), but they look awesome when printed on photo paper with a 6-color printer (Epson Stylus Photo 750, in my case). Certain things, like tiny tree branches, show the printer's deficiency in the 720dpi direction (the long edge of the paper). Mind you, of those 400 pics I've taken, pixelation is visible in less than a dozen of them -- but that's the printer and not the camera. 2048x1536 is more than enough to print an 8.5"x11" photo without artifacts if only the printer were capable. Gimme a 2400x2400 dpi printer and I promise you won't be able to distinguish between this camera's photos and a real 35mm in any of the usual photo situations. (With an f-stop limited to F8, 'usual' is defined as a broad but comparatively small set of situations.) Also, the camera can store 236 JPEGs at full resolution on the microdrive. It's just a fairly lousy compression ratio so if you print them larger than 4"x6", JPEG artifacts quickly show themselves. 7:1 is as good as it gets with this camera if you use JPEG. And speaking of unsupported/undocumented features, it's possible to get shutter speeds up to 60 seconds (the documentation says the limit is two seconds); however, I've found that any exposure over 1.3 seconds tends to show a lot of CCD noise. That includes shots of the night sky... this camera captures starlight (and airplane lights) with exposure times less than 1 second. The only limitation that's repeatedly been bothersome is the f-stop range. It's F2-F8, which is way too small; should be F2-F12, at least, F22, preferably. My two on-topic cents... |
| great info! (Score:1) by bobalu on Saturday April 22, @07:22PM EST (#346) (User Info) |
| Thanks for the lowdown! The revolution will NOT be televised. |
| Olympus C2000Z (Score:1) by eGabriel (egabriel(*at*)io.com) on Saturday April 22, @08:57AM EST (#30) (User Info) http://www.devo.com/dfdgo/ |
| I have one of the CxxxxZ series camera, and they are truly a joy to use. You get a lot of control over the picture, and while perhaps still not quite as much as a film camera, you'll find most of the settings you want are available. There are some lenses available via an adapter also, so no complaints. First I had an Olympus D320L, which is nice for snapshots, but isn't the serious camera the C2000Z is. -Gabriel |
| Decent 'help-you-choose' guide (Score:5, Informative) by Balfazar on Saturday April 22, @08:57AM EST (#31) (User Info) |
| I was just looking at digital camera choices yesterday and came across this handy 'tell us what is important and we'll help you choose a camera guide' at activebuyersguide.com. It lets you set your priorities/preferences etc. and asks you a series of 'tie-breaker' questions, then spits out several recommendations with full stats. I found it a helpful starting place. -- Balf |
| Kodak DC215? (Score:3, Informative) by Booker (eric_sandeen.NO@SPAM.bigfoot.com) on Saturday April 22, @08:59AM EST (#33) (User Info) |
| I've seen the Kodak DC215 for cheap... like $230 online. This is the first time I've seen a megapixel camera with an LCD display for this cheap. In the past, it seemed like digital cameras never got less expensive... new ones would come out, and the old ones, instead of getting cheaper, just seemed to disappear. Anyone have experience with the DC215? Also, GPhoto should be pointed out... this is one sweet looking app. Great effort by those guys! --- |
| Re:Kodak DC215? (Score:1) by Slothy (slashdotspam@slothy.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:21AM EST (#71) (User Info) http://www.slothy.com |
| Yes, I got a Kodak DC215 Zoom a few weeks ago. I absolutely love it and recommend it to anyone looking to get a digital camera. First off, the pictures are good quality, and the resolution goes up to 1152x864 (or you can do 640x480). There are settings for the "Quality" as opposed to the resolution, and those are "Good", Better", and "Best". Since it saves a JPG, I assume this is just the amount of compression. The unfortunate part is that it cames with only a 4 meg card. The 4-meg card holds around 12-16 highest res images, and around 32 good quality 640x480 pics. I personally got a 32-meg card, which holds like 480 640x480 images, or around 115 highest-quality images. More importantly, the camera has a 2x optical zoom. This means when you look in the view finder (not the LCD screen), you can zoom in and out and see it. This is important as the LCD screens eat battries on any camera. Additionally, they have a "closeup" mode for taking pictures of things that are around 6 inches away. I have 3 photos that I took with the camera, all completely unretouched and straight off the camera: First, just a regular shot off my balcony, 1152x864: http://www.slothy.com/dc215-001.jpg Next, I did the 2x optical zoom to zoom in as much as possible: http://www.slothy.com/dc215-002.jpg Finally, I took a picture of some tree branch using the "closeup" mode: http://www.slothy.com/dc215-003.jpg To finish this off, the camera DOES work in gphoto. I get a lot of timeout problems, but if you leave it be, it does the job well. |
| Re:Kodak DC215? (Score:1) by cowbutt on Saturday April 22, @11:29AM EST (#198) (User Info) http://www.cocoa.demon.co.uk/ |
| I've had one since December last year and I think it's pretty good value for money. It's not as good as the high-end digicams (e.g. Nikon Coolpix, Olympus 2000Z) or a quality film camera, but it's a good digicam point-and-shoot equivalent. It works well with gphoto too, which was a must for me. The focus has been criticized as being somewhat soft, so try it on some mid-long range shots to see if you notice - I didn't at first, but I'm beginning to now. I don't regret buying it though as I was (and still am) new to photography, so I didn't want to spend much money to begin with. |
| Re:Kodak DC215? (Score:2) by slim (slim@ladle.demon.co.uk) on Saturday April 22, @01:47PM EST (#272) (User Info) http://www.ladle.demon.co.uk |
| Hey, I bought a DC215 only last week. |
| Re:Kodak DC215? (Score:2, Informative) by clasher (kefferb@usa.net) on Saturday April 22, @03:29PM EST (#303) (User Info) |
| My mother just bought a DC215 this morning, and I have been playing with it since. I think the pictures are a good quality, the camera seems durable, and the features are nice. What most impressed me was that my mom seemed able to understand the interface right away. This is her first real digital gadget and she seemed navigate the camera easily. I woulnd't have really though much about it if I were buying the camera for myself but I think it is an important thing to have a intuitive interface for those who are new to digital cameras. We did buy a 16 meg card for it, the 4mb probably wouldn't last too long. Also I made sure to look at the gphoto project before buying it and was happy to see the large number of cameras supported. All in all we are satisified with the DC215. |
| Good for web work, soft images (Score:2) by dingbat_hp (dingbat@codesmiths.com) on Saturday April 22, @05:23PM EST (#327) (User Info) |
| I bought one recently. Bargain prices, nice ergonomics. The images are too soft to do "photography" with, but they're OK for making web content. Eats batteries, but then don't they all. |
| Canon Powershot S20 (Score:1) by Betcour on Saturday April 22, @09:01AM EST (#34) (User Info) |
| Here's why : - smallest size ever (which is important, since when pics don't cost anything you usually want to take a lot of them everywhere) - 3,3 megapixels (2048x1536 pictures). (CCD) Size does matter - it is probably the #1 criteria - 2x zoom (not very powerfull but usefull anyway) - USB port (serial too for linux), because 1,5 MB/picture is slow to transfer - Compactflash type II (accept the IBM mini hard-drive) - special "panoramic" mode (unique feature of it) - looks cool too (alimunium case) I had a Coolpix 950 from Nikon before which was great too - for different reasons. Stay away from Sony digicams, the floppy disk sucks (quality digital imaging on a 1,44 (very slow) disk ? they must be kidding). |
| My experience with digital cameras (Score:1) by mkgray on Saturday April 22, @09:02AM EST (#35) (User Info) http://www.mit.edu/~mkgray/ |
| I purchased my first digital camera (a Agfa ephoto307) 3 years ago, and just purchased my second. The Agfa was very nice (36 640x480 pix, long battery life, no LCD) but is a bit outdated by todays standards. When it came out, I had to write my own Linux drivers, but now gphoto supports most cameras. I just purchased a Kodak DC280, which is an outstanding camera. 2 megapixel images, 2x optical zoom, supports CompactFlash cards, and has stunning image quality. The USB support under linux is even good, making the download times reasonable (~1 second per image) instead of the wait that serial causes (10-40 seconds per image). The "smaller" resolution (896x592) is very good as well. One common problem with digital cameras is how quickly you can take consecutive shots. On my Agfa, it is several seconds (and it's gotten worse since it was dropped) which can be very annoying. On my Kodak, it still takes a long time to write to the compactflash card, but it has some built in RAM, which allows it to buffer this. So, your "steady state" picture taking rate is still only one every 4-8 seconds, but you can shoot of 2 or 3 in rapid succession before the temporary buffer is full. This is a key feature. Another one I seriously considered, somewhat less expensive, is the Olympus D-340R. C|Net has some good reviews. The major features to look for roughly in order, IMHO, are: gphoto support (or linux driver availability) Resolution Pictures stored (and expandability) Time between photos Transfer times Optical zoom Battery life Picture quality LCD UI/other features Decide what of these is important to you, and read some reviews. As mentioned above, C|Net is pretty good. |
| That's easy (Score:2, Informative) by ErikZ on Saturday April 22, @09:03AM EST (#38) (User Info) |
| How much money do you got? Hmm, still need more info? Actually, I was going over all the digicams a while back. It seems that they are still working out the bugs in these new cameras. Decide what you MUST have. rec.photo.digital is a good place to ask if anyone has had problems with X camera. http://www.pcphotoreview.com/ for those without access to newsgroups. Then go to professional sites that review digicams like http://photo.askey.net/ I ended up buying an Epson 750Z due to: Fast updates on the LCD. Only camera that had a 'Sun assist' on the LCD. Not a single hardware/software complaint. Came with Card, NIMh batteries and charger. Optical sight and LCD sight. Good reviews. Good price. Got it on sale on Buy.com I'm STILL happy with the camera even though it's 'only' Later Erik Z |
| Still too expensive (Score:1) by gammatron on Saturday April 22, @09:05AM EST (#39) (User Info) |
| Film is still the way to go for even the moderately serious photographer. Even if you only take 1 roll of photos per week, you'll end up paying more for digital when you factor in the cost of the camera, printer, ink, paper, etc... Plus the resolution is not even close. Buy a good 35mm SLR and a film scanner if you want both quality prints and a digital archive. Buy a cheap-o digital if you're only publishing on the web. And if you are only publishing on the web, you don't need those 3 mega-pixel cameras - no one wants to download a .jpg bigger than 640x480 except in the most extreme circumstances. Just because the technology is newer doesn't mean its better :) -- http://gammatron.weblogger.com |
| Re:Still too expensive (Score:1) by ErikZ on Saturday April 22, @09:17AM EST (#65) (User Info) |
| Ah, I don't factor in the cost of the Printer, ink, paper, etc because I just display my photos on my computer. Are you going to list the Computer as a cost? A digital camera is pretty much useless without one. Later Erik Z |
| Re:Still too expensive (Score:1) by gammatron on Saturday April 22, @12:21PM EST (#226) (User Info) |
| Actually, there are several printers on the market now that either connect directly to a digital camera or else accept standard media (memory sticks and those little Flash RAM cards), so you really don't need the computer at all, unless you want to edit the pictures (but this is usually not done to film photos, so I would count it as "extra"). Again, it really depends on your needs, but most people will find digital to be more expensive. If you are just viewing the pics on your computer and emailing them or putting them on webpages, you can cut out both the printer, etc. and the higher resolution cameras - 640x480 should be more than enough. -- http://gammatron.weblogger.com |
| Kodak DC290 (Score:4, Insightful) by signe (signe@SPAMtechnicalPROOF.net) on Saturday April 22, @09:05AM EST (#41) (User Info) http://www.technical.net/~signe/index.html |
| The Kodak DC290 is one of the better digital cameras I've seen. Great picture quality, decent zoom, great controls. And the scripting language (Digita) really tops it off. With that you can load apps on your camera to help you take pictures. Like things to assist with panoramic shots, or exposure settings. I've had mine for a few weeks now, and I've taken plenty of pictures. Combined with Paint Shop Pro to clean up pictures that were too dark (because of distance), the pictures are better than anything I've taken with a film camera. And the USB cable makes it pretty quick to get the pictures onto the computer. I ended up buying mine at Accompany (now MobShop). They regularly have them for $680 to $650. And I happened on a NYTimes promo code for them, and got 20% off that. So it ended up being slightly more than $500. For a $900 camera, that's not too bad. If you'd like to see some pictures from my camera, check out the Photos section of my web site. It's still under construction, but the pictures taken of the Explorer, as well as the pictures from the wedding and the pictures of Akamai's servers, are all from my DC290. The only ones that I cleaned up in PSP were the wedding pictures (since they were in a dark room). -Todd --- "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..." |
| Re:Kodak DC290 (Score:1) by alexandre (firewave@REMOVE.videotron.ca) on Saturday April 22, @11:07AM EST (#180) (User Info) http://www.linux-quebec.org |
| Have you tried it under linux? i know all of the DC2xx cameras are supported on the USB side, but gPhoto doesnt support the 290 yet (but does support the 280 though:), i heard there is a python script for the moment, what, if you tried it, do you think it is worth? thanks :) --- Linux-Québec |
| Re:Kodak DC290 (Score:2) by ywwg (ywwg@NOSPAM!.usa.net) on Saturday April 22, @12:06PM EST (#215) (User Info) http://ywwg.dhs.org |
| I've noticed that cameras with only a model number only incrementally higher tend to have the same protocol as their predicessors (sp). side note: I've sent the gphoto people perl source for the kodak DC-120 that someone else sent me, and they never ever put it into the main source! I've given it to them like three times, and they always ignore it! I would port it myself, but I don't know perl. |
| Re:Kodak DC290 (Score:2) by signe (signe@SPAMtechnicalPROOF.net) on Saturday April 22, @12:29PM EST (#232) (User Info) http://www.technical.net/~signe/index.html |
| Haven't tried it under Linux yet (my Linux box is at another location right now, and since I'm using PSP to clean up the pictures when needed, it's easier to pull them onto my Windoze box). However, I'd be surprised if the DC290 didn't work with something that worked with the 280. And really surprised if it was more difficult than a couple lines of code to make it work if it didn't. The protocol used isn't that dissimilar. -Todd --- "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..." |
| Kodak DC290 (and Linux support) (Score:1) by Clifton Wood (askslash@exit118.com) on Sunday April 23, @05:04PM EST (#440) (User Info) |
Have you tried it under linux? i know all of the DC2xx cameras are supported on the USB side, but gPhoto doesnt support the 290 yet (but does support the 280 though :), i heard there is a python script for the moment, what, if you tried it, do you think it is worth?The DC290 works perfectly under Linux using the same ks binary that works with the 260/265. I've been downloading my pictures onto my Sony Vaio (which really needs a new HD as mine is failing) for weeks now with nothing but the occasional timeout. You will need patches for 2.2.14, which someone has pointed out in this thread already. Consecutive picture time on the DC290 is a bit low for my tastes, but it offers great features for a digital camera including zoom, exposure settings, red-eye reduction and you can script it. |
| Re:Kodak DC290 (Score:1) by esobofh (esobofh@mybc.com) on Saturday April 22, @11:16AM EST (#190) (User Info) http://www.sharpstone.net |
| Todd; Excellent coherent post, and with real world examples to boot.. many thanks.. now.. one question - I have been considering the kodak 290 but, i had one of their old cameras and the flash was offset, producing annoying shadows on the opposite side of the subject.. is this correct in the 290? I ask because, especially in the wedding photos, I still see a trace of excess shadow to the left of everything.. am I correct in assuming they still have the offset flash? ---------------------------- Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice. |
| Re:Kodak DC290 (Score:2) by signe (signe@SPAMtechnicalPROOF.net) on Saturday April 22, @12:26PM EST (#230) (User Info) http://www.technical.net/~signe/index.html |
| Yes, the flash is slightly offset over the top of the lens (overlaps the right edge of the lens as you're looking through the camera). It's probably a little more noticeable in the wedding pictures because of the gamma correction I did on a lot of those shots (the rooms were really dark). I wonder if there's a post-processing app, or a filter for PSP, that I could use to clean that up. However, even given that flaw, I think this is one of the better cameras out there. The other ones that I was looking at were the new 3MP cameras coming out, like the Powershot S20 and the new Fuji 4700. However, they weren't available yet, and the price I got on the DC290 was just too good. -Todd --- "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..." |
| Re:Kodak DC290 (Score:1) by Hallucinosis on Saturday April 22, @09:57PM EST (#374) (User Info) |
| The Kodak DC280 is likewise a great camera. It is fairly similar to the DC290, but lacks some of the multimedia and adjustment features and is much smaller. The most notable difference, aside from size, is the zoom capability-- the DC290 has a 3x optical and 2x digital zoom whereas the DC280 has a 2x optical and 3x digital zoom. A few months ago I payed approximately $600 for my DC280, which may seem like a lot of money until you consider that I've already taken over 1,100 photos with the camera-- all together I have not taken that many photos with my father's Canon AE1 as the added cost and wait time associated with using film is preventative to me. The ability to transfer several pictures to my computer in a matter of seconds is very appealing to me. My personal preference is to look at photos on my monitor and be able to send them to my friends with ease. I don't have to wait for the film to develop and then to scan each photo in individually. The DC280 and DC290 create really nice pictures-- the quality is quite acceptable for most people who want to take a few snaps of their friends, family, pets, and even of things you wouldn't normally take pictures of as it could be a waste of film, but not completely unworthy of a photo. It allows you the freedom to take way too many pictures. Now, a word on digital camera media: Compact flash is my favorite as it seems to be the cheapest and is available in a wide range from very small to 340MB (with actual compact flash memory you can go up to 256MB currently-- the 340MB is available from IBM as a very small compact flash hard disk... very cool). Plus, I can put the compact flash card into a PCMCIA converter into a laptop or into the compact flash slot on my PDA to view the pictures (not even practicle on a Nec MobilePro 800 at 800x600... maybe a laptop with 1280x1024). Smart memory is very low on my list here as I think it's too flimsy, slightly more expensive, proprietary, and is not available in anything above 64 MB (as a matter of fact, I don't even know if it goes that high... I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Memory sticks are available in up to 64MB (so far as I know) and they're made by Sony (and only by Sony)... enough said. |
| Kodak DC-290 (Score:1) by Xaroth on Saturday April 22, @09:05AM EST (#42) (User Info) |
| I'd say this one is the best, but only because you can play MAME on it when you're not taking photos. If only more devices were pac-man compliant... |
| Nikon Coolpix 800 (Score:1) by planet_hoth (planet_hoth yahoo.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:08AM EST (#45) (User Info) http://hirame.hiram.edu/~worleyam/ |
| I recently purchased a Nikon Coolpix 800, and it is an amazing little device. It's specs are: 2.11 Megapixel, 2X optical zoom (software zoom is completely useless, IMO, you can do the same thing in Gimp/Photoshop, and it'll look less pixely,) 1.8 inch LCD, and a threaded lens adapter so you can use telephoto/fisheye lens or filters with it. And it's from Nikon, a camera company with a good reputation. The image quality is awesome, its about as good as you're going to get for any camera under $1500, I would say. The color tone is comparable to the Kodak cameras, which are the best out there. The LCD screen is incredibly sharp and bright, even in daylight. It is the best LCD screen I have seen on a digital camera. It has an automatic mode for point-and-shoot types, and a manual mode with several bells and whistles for people a little more interested in photography. With an up to 8 sec. exposue time, this camera is great for low light conditions (assuming you have a tripod.) It has a really cool feature that will take a bunch off pictures in quick succession and pick the least blurry one to be saved to disk. I use this more than I thought I would. The camera itself is pretty small and light. It fits confortably in my hands. It looks pretty cool, for what that's worth. Here's its only drawbacks: The camera only comes with a 8Mb memory card: plan on buying a bigger one if you are going to use this camera much. No USB support (serial is too slow if you're transfering say 32Mb worth of images to your HD.) Some people complain that the flash is too weak. I think the flash is fine for a small camera, but there's no adapter for a larger external flash so be forewarned. I picked mine up at under $500. It's cheap compared to other digital cameras with the same features. Even the guys at the local camera store said it was a good model! Plus it works great with gphoto (better, in fact than it worked with the windows software that shipped with it!) Eat me, Beretta! |
| Nikon CoolPix 990 (Score:1) by kbahey (khalid.at.baheyeldin.dot.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:09AM EST (#49) (User Info) http://khalid.baheyeldin.com |
| Well, I happen to be researching the same subject these days. I was about to buy the Nikon CoolPix 950, but the 990 came out, and it is far better (more resolution, USB connection and more). That said, the 950 is a bargain these days with 100$US rebate (for those in the USA, here in Saudi Arabia, it just hit the shelf for 4,700 SR ~ 1,250$US for the older 950!). The Sony DSC-F505 is also a super camera, with perhaps the best lens (Carl Zeiss) you can get for a ~ 1,000$ price range. You can read extensive reviews of all the above at Phil Askey's wonderful Digital Photography Review web site. You will find a photo gallery of sample pictures for each camera. Another way of doing it, if you also want a camcorder, is to get one of the new Digital Video camcorder (or Sony's Digital8 format) and a FireWire/IEEE1364 card. The quality is lower than the Nikon above, but still acceptable for most web publishing.
|
| Olympus C-2000Z (Score:1) by heretic (heretic@spam.me.not.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:09AM EST (#50) (User Info) |
| I'm very pleased with this camera having used most of the models out there (and having worked on some of the first digital cameras). It has good optics, great resolution, good features, and a very compact size. Some of the controls are a little difficult to use, and the menus are not the best organized, but if you use it in mostly point and shoot situations, its a very good solution. There's a newer model (C-2500) to which I'm considering trading up. |
| Whoops, that should be Casio, not Olympus (Score:1) by heretic (heretic@spam.me.not.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:11AM EST (#54) (User Info) |
| Sorry -- had a brain fart. |
| Scratch that, it is Olympus (Score:1) by heretic (heretic@spam.me.not.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:03AM EST (#113) (User Info) |
| Double brain seizure. |
| What do you want it for??? (Score:2) by www.sorehands.com on Saturday April 22, @09:10AM EST (#51) (User Info) http://www.sorehands.com |
| If you just want pics for a non-professional website, you don't need much resolution since a display is about 72dpi. Now, if you want more, go for the optics. I have an Olympus DL-500. I liked the zoom, but I picked te 500 instead of the 600 because of the price difference (back in 97) and that the 500 had a faster ASA (film speed) since with real film I usually use ASA 400 film. Most of the pics, done in 1996) on my website were done with an Epson Photo PC. I didn't like the the fact that you needed a computer to 'reload' the 'film'. The Mavica using floppy does make it universal, but I like the size and power use (non-use) of the smart-media cards). RSI injured geek wins against Mattel, Mattel still retaliates! |
| Nothing beats film and a good SLR Camera (Score:1) by BrownJ (brownj@serial.dyndns.org) on Saturday April 22, @09:11AM EST (#52) (User Info) http://www.serial.dyndns.org/~brownj/ |
| For high quality pictures nothing beats a good roll of film and a nice Single Lens Reflex Camera I'm a geek, however photography and computers don't mix in my own opinon. Some film cameras nowadays are even too advanced for my tastes. It's hard to beat the resolution, depth of field, and crispness of a good SLR camera. Digital cameras are good for putting a photo on a website, not for vacation photo's, not for any photos. Eh? |
| wanted: camera with micro hard drive, ethernet (Score:1) by jab (jeff@jab.org) on Saturday April 22, @09:11AM EST (#53) (User Info) http://www.jab.org |
| I keep hearing about these super tiny hard drives that IBM and company make. They're supposed to be about one square inch, and very thin, yet hold several hundred megabytes. That would be great, since it could hold a bizillion pictures (especially if it used a reasonable compression algorithm, like JPEG2000). Then, I'd love to just plug it into my hub's ethernet port and download the pictures from the camera's built in web server (I'd probably use wget to do the job.) Boy, that would be a great camera -- which neatly sidesteps a lot of ugly software issues. |
| Re:wanted: camera with micro hard drive, ethernet (Score:1) by heretic (heretic@spam.me.not.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:14AM EST (#58) (User Info) |
| I highly recommend the microdrive. You can get them at CDW. |
| My experience (Score:3, Informative) by bmetz on Saturday April 22, @09:14AM EST (#59) (User Info) |
| First and foremost: USB, USB, USB. You will regret it if you go for a camera that uses a serial link to connect to your computer. Your only hope then is usually a CompactFlash card reader that you can hook up to your PC/laptop. Speaking of CompactFlash, the camera you're looking at uses it, right? Unless you enjoy proprietary ripoff memory you want to stick to CF memory. Besides, if you ever feel the urge, IBM's MicroDrive is CompactFlash..how does a 340 meg hard drive sound in your camera? Another big issue is Linux compatibility. Your first stop is to www.gphoto.org to check their list of supported camera models. Their list is NOT the definitive list, however! If you can put up with closed-source software, JCam (www.jcam.com) has a huge list of supported cameras. And one last note..the Kodak guys have been VERY nice to me and from the sound of it most other vendors have been pretty secretive about their specs/transfer protocols. If you want to support companies that treat you right, keep the linux-friendly-support factor in mind. |
| Re:My experience (Score:1) by Sq (mnalis-sd@voyager.hr) on Saturday April 22, @02:17PM EST (#278) (User Info) |
| And one last note..the Kodak guys have been VERY nice to me and from the sound of it most other vendors have been pretty secretive about their specs/transfer protocols. If you want to support companies that treat you right, keep the linux-friendly-support factor in mind. I would have to disagree. I bought Kodak DC50, which used propriatory .KDC format (note: this is not the same one used in their newer cameras, which is basically JPG) - and made it quite clear that they will not port to Linux, will not give any source or formats, not even a closed-source SDK. (reason given was standard "it is so powerful techology that we would be overrun if we gave any hints how to decode it". Yeah right. And newer models uses standard .JPG) I've started to use twin/winelib to create application that would use their window SDK to enable me to convert .KDC to .JPG, but eventually I've given up and sold it, and get myself Olympus C900Zoom. Very very nice one, I would recommend it highly. |
| Sony Mavica MVC-FD91 (Score:3, Interesting) by The Famous Brett Wat (famous at nutters org) on Saturday April 22, @09:15AM EST (#62) (User Info) |
| My Sony Mavica MVC-FD91 is more than a year old now and wasn't exactly a new new thing when I got it, but it's been nothing but a joy to own. The floppy disk medium is very convenient, and the images are stored as JPEGs with an HTML index file. There's barely a computer known to man that has a floppy disk and can't make immediate use of these. The FD91 was top of the range at the time it was released, and only intended for moderately serious use with a price tag to match. It has an excellent 14x optical zoom (no nasty expanding pixel tricks) and takes photos at either 640x480 or 1024x768 res with two different JPEG compression settings. There's also an uncompressed BMP mode that I've never used. At the tight end of the zoom you can get a whole lot of detail on a fairly distant object, so it's good for taking candid shots that people aren't aware of. This is helped by the camera's "steady shot" feature, that I rarely if ever turn off. Purists will also be pleased to note that all its features are manually overridable, so you can focus manually if you like. Exposure is automatic, but you can do shutter or iris priority, and expose to the entire scene or turn on the spot meter for high contrast situations. There are several white balance modes as well. On top of this, it will also do audio/visual MPEG recordings at 320x200 for 15 sec, or 160x100 for a minute. Probably more useful is the "audio annotation" feature where you take an ordinary still with several seconds worth of audio attached as a separate MPEG file. The audio can be a bit artifacty, and it's a "convenience" feature: you'd never mistake it for a serious audio recorder. All in all the camera is easy to praise. It's easy to use and produces very nice results in most environments. My only gripes about the camera would be that the widest zoom angle is a bit narrow, and I'd like better low-light performance. Not that its low light performance is bad, but I know that CCDs can be really impressive in low light when they want to be, and getting a flash photo to work well can be a bit of a challenge. I'd love to post a "photo gallery" link for you all, but my poor old 'net link would not stand the Slashdotting. Disclosure: I used to be a Sony employee, and I got mine on the cheap as an ex-demo unit. Sony retrenched me, so it's not like I feel I have to say nice things about them, though. |
| 35mm (like) SLR Digital Camera (Score:2) by mhatle on Saturday April 22, @09:17AM EST (#66) (User Info) http://gate.crashing.org |
| What I would like is an (affordable) digital camera that is SLR, and can use "standard" 35mm lens. I own a digital camera, but I would really love the ability to change the lens, set the focus, etc manually. Most digital cameras just focus into the middle of the shot. (Unfortunatly, a lot of the time, thats not where you want it focused...) So can anyone recommend a Megapixel digital camera, that uses "standard" off the shelf 35mm SLR type lens, AND is affordable.. (I'll qualify that as $500 w/o lens...) --Mark |
| Re:35mm (like) SLR Digital Camera (Score:1) by MochaMan on Saturday April 22, @10:03AM EST (#117) (User Info) |
| Uh oh... you're not even gonna get a decent new analog SLR body for under $500... Nikon's D1 is an excellent digital camera which works with almost all standard Nikon AF lenses, but the price is $5000-ish US. Kodak also makes some digital cameras, but they are converted analog cameras from Canon and Nikon, and they are in the near $10 000 US range. As I say, even a decent (I expect if you want an SLR, you want decent quality) used SLR body is going to run you $300-ish, so I wouldn't count on any digital SLRs near that price anytime soon. |
| Re:35mm (like) SLR Digital Camera (Score:2) by Andy Dodd (atd7@cornellNO.SPAMedu) on Saturday April 22, @10:14AM EST (#130) (User Info) http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/atd7/ |
| I'd say that "decent" is a relative term. My family has a Pentax PZ-70. The whole outfit (Body and Sigma 28-200 lens) cost around $600. The main thing I don't like about it is that Pentax isn't that big a brand, so accessories are harder to find. And nowadays you can get a "major" name SLR that beats the PZ-70 for less than $600 including a newer 28-200 lens that can focus a lot closer. (The only other gripe I have about my particular outfit is the focusing distance needed for the 28-200. Sigma now has lenses with far better specs for less than this lens cost.) |
| Re:Pentax availability (Score:1) by MochaMan on Sunday April 23, @11:52AM EST (#432) (User Info) |
| The main thing I don't like about it is that Pentax isn't that big a brand, so accessories are harder to find. Hmm. Pentax seems to be no problem to find up here (Victoria, Canada), but then again, one of the shops in town specialises in Pentax. I'd say that "decent" is a relative term. Oh I agree 100% there. You can definitely get a decent camera for anywhere upwards of $500 US. When I said decent, I decent (as in niiiice). If you want autofocus, a good metering system, aperture and exposure priority modes, you're going to be looking somewhere upwards of $900 US at least... I use two cameras on a daily basis: a Nikon F100 and a Nikon FE. The F100 is loaded with a ton of options, but not as heavy as the F5 (and without a few of the F5s cool gizmos), and is great when I need high-quality pictures without in a hurry. On the other hand, I have a really nice Nikon FE from the early 80s that is completely manual, doesn't have particularly wonderful metering, and is exposure priority only. That camera is great, and indestructible, and cost $300 CDN (about $200 US) used but in mint condition. For a lot of things, I much prefer the FE, but if I'm taking shots of birds and other animals, which a propensity for moving just when you've finished focusing a manual camera, I prefer the F100. |
| Uncompromised Quality (Score:1) by megabeck42 on Saturday April 22, @09:18AM EST (#67) (User Info) |
| The Nikon D1. It is beautiful. Its a professional quality Digital Camera, takes Nikon's F-Mount Autofocus lenses. This isn't a camera with a cheap, small CCD. Its not a full 35mm size ccd, but, its still a really really good. And, Only $6,000. Btw, you'd have to spend a good $2000 on lenses, too, like the 17-35f2.8, 50f1.8, and 80-200f2.8 AFS. Nikon Website's Propaganda Or, You could get a Kodak DCS 620, which has a full-frame 35mm ccd. Its ungodly sharp and crisp. Only, what, $20,000? (This too, uses Nikon Lenses.) Nikon lenses are quality. Yeah, They're not Zeiss lenses, but, They're not shabby either, better than that Tamron/Canon/Fuji crap. The reason I point out these two cameras, is because often times I see people buying just by the numbers. They want to maximize the amount of pixels, and minimize the cost. Now, In my humble estimation, 1024x768 sharp color-balanced pixels is better than 16000x12000 pixels that have been software-interpolated from some crappy ccd.. I really want a D1, and may purchase on this summer. It'll use all of my nikon lenses, and is a really really nice camera. Though, I'm really tempted to wait until they come out with a Digital camera which has the same frame size as a my film cameras. So, until then, I shall stay with the best digital photography solution: Nikon film camera, Fujichrome (velvia, provia, astia, whatever.), and a film-scanner. The Fujichrome has a lot more resolution than a ccd. However, The CCD's they put in slide-scanners take minutes to go over the whole slide, thus, they do a much better job than the CCD's in a regular digital camera. Moral: Check out Nikon Cameras. |
| The two I've had (Score:3, Informative) by rm -rf /etc/* on Saturday April 22, @09:20AM EST (#70) (User Info) http://www.microsoft.com |
| WIthout knowing details on what specific features are needed, here's a brief review on two I've owned, the Olympus D-340 and the Kodak DC280. Olympus ------ + great case with integrated sliding lense cover + ability to store uncompressed tiffs + great color, especially in dark situations + adjustable ISO setting + excellent battery life + very sharp preview screen - way too hard to use, interface sucks - pictures didn't look as good as the kodak when printed - serial only - screen sticks out so it's impossible not to smudge with your cheek Kodak ---- + higher resolution + 20 MB memory + USB + good quality printed pictures + easy to use interface - crappy lens cover that falls off all the time - somewhat slower on taking pictures, has to be held still - poor battery life, only about 15 minutes of constant use - crappy preview screen, can't tell how good the picture is Overall it's a tough call. I think the really really bad battery life of the kodak combined with the useless LCD screen really ruin it. You're probably better of spending a bit more and getting a camera that has the best of both :) |
| Fuji Finepix S1 Pro (Score:1) by farnham (Photog@ufl.edu) on Saturday April 22, @09:21AM EST (#73) (User Info) |
| Hows about 6.1 million pixels? Here's an SLR with Nikon lens compatibility, octagonal shaped pixels in a honeycomb pattern, takes both CompactFlash and SmartMedia cards, And comes with a 2 inch LCD. This camera is the Sh17. And only $4k before buying lenses. Obviously this camera is not for everyone. It is a specialized professional tool. However it is also a very useful tool for many people. More and more pros are moving to digital because they don't have to mess with developing and can get to press faster. With these resolutions, digital is quickly approaching the usability of 35mm for enlargement. Art photographers find the convenience of going straight into photoshop or gimp very useful http://www.fujifilm.com/tcm.html?x-tempest-op=generic&ContentId=2245&UserTypeId=4&page type=FocusLevelTwo Sig pending comittee review |
| Re:Fuji Finepix S1 Pro (Score:1) by megabeck42 on Saturday April 22, @12:42PM EST (#238) (User Info) |
| Well. 6.1 megapixels through software-interpolation. The CCD is not really 6.1 megapixels. Also, the camera is based off of the Nikon N60 body. IMHO, an unfortunate choice. The N60 doesn't support many of the really novel features of the newer lenses coming out, like AFS and VR. Its' autofocus also leaves much room for improvement. A better choice to have built this camera on would have been the Nikon F100, N70, or N90s. It is, though, still cheaper than the Nikon D1 or a Kodak Hybrid. |
| Re:Fuji Finepix S1 Pro (Score:1) by wolverine1999 on Monday April 24, @02:08AM EST (#448) (User Info) http://www.maltanetworkresources.com |
| I've seen a fuji digital camera. The weak point was the software which had you have to doubleclick on every image you want to download from the camera to the computer. You can't just download all the stuff in one go. You could do that with a Hewlett Packard at least. If you don't have a USB port, you'll have to use a serial cable, and unless you get a port switcher to work, you'll have to remove your mouse and (1) find a mouse for your COM2: port, or (2) get some way to move the pointer using the keyboard (MouseKeys perhaps) since the HP software's weak point is that it does not have keyboard shortcuts and does not allow keyboard use. |
| WebCam Go (Score:1) by centron on Saturday April 22, @09:22AM EST (#76) (User Info) http://www.execpc.com/~centron |
| Although I'm pretty sure this camera doesn't work in Linux (yet!), it is a great deal for the cash. It costs about US $150 and takes 92 640x480 pics. Simple as can be. But wait, theres more! Plug the usb cable in the back and not only can you transfer the pics back to your Win98 box, it can be used as a Video Camera while plugged in! If you just want to take quick shots for e-mail or the web and do video conferencing and such, the Creative Webcam Go is the camera to have. x=0, label A, x+1=x, cls, Print X, Goto A |
| Re:WebCam Go (Score:1) by DMoylan on Saturday April 22, @10:34AM EST (#153) (User Info) |
| Yeah, I own one of these little puppies and its good for simple snapshots. It's small enough to fit in my bag so I can take snaps or a number of images and as such it has replaced me old Kodak APS camera, I do wish it had higher resolution than 640*480 and more memory than 4mb or at least a CF slot. I bought it as my first digital camera and it I reckon I'll never buy a camera that requires film again. |
| Floppy==conectivity (Score:3, Insightful) by Money__ (hallada at msgto dot com) on Saturday April 22, @09:24AM EST (#77) (User Info) file:///C|/Windows/Exit%20To%20DOS.pif |
| Our company has a digital camera with a 1.4M, 3.5 inch floppy drive that stores ~60k jpg images at 640x480. There's something to be said for a floppies ability to conect with *any* computer, any where, any time. Couple that with the fact that floppies are *almost* free, and you've got an open and affordable format to make sure every computer can view the image. In recent years, the ability to read the jpg format has been increased since almost every computer has at least a web browser. With every camera manufacturer offering their own proprietary storage media, remember that your images, like undeveloped film, are just bits untill a computer can read them. |
| Re:Floppy==conectivity (Score:1) by DrEldarion (hwoarang29@yahoo.spamisevil.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:49AM EST (#101) (User Info) |
| There's something to be said for a floppies ability to conect with *any* computer, any where, any time Well, that is unless you use an IMac... the designers must have been on crack not to add a floppy drive... -- Dr. Eldarion -- It's not what it is, it's something else. All you Nobuo Uematsu fans, help get this released! |
| Re:Floppy==conectivity (Score:1) by Money__ (hallada at msgto dot com) on Saturday April 22, @10:02AM EST (#112) (User Info) file:///C|/Windows/Exit%20To%20DOS.pif |
| You bring up an interesting point about the IMac. There are many older Macs that can't read the peecee floppies either, so there are exceptions. When we made the purchasing decision to get these camera, we counted the number of computers in our office that needed to view and/or distribute the pictures to customers. Then we counted the number of computers *at our customers facility* that would be able to read the images and the choice became clear. Also, being able to choose the distribution method has proven to be a huge plus. Got email? fine, I'll attach them. Got a fax machine? the fax gateway can get the, somewhat crappy, image to you. Network problems? at a trade show? No email? fine, I'll FedEx the disks.
|
| Recommend KODAK DC-290 (Score:1) by deuteronomy (trashaccount99@hotmail.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:26AM EST (#78) (User Info) |
| I picked up a Kodak DC-290 after whittling it down to the Olympus C-2020, Nikon 950 and the Kodak. The resaon was that they all took real clear, color correct pictures. The Nikon has some interesting features like ebing able to capture a 360 panorama in (2) shots with a fisheye lense, and the Olympus feels like a 'real' SLR type camera, but lacks USB. I finally grabbed the Kodak since it produced great shots, nd it is fully scriptable with a scripting language called Digita allowing you full access to all camera parameters and settings, very very cool... GNU is not apple cobbler. |
| Olympus, Nikon or Canon (Score:1) by jonr (si.xetrov@rnoj) on Saturday April 22, @09:30AM EST (#83) (User Info) http://www.vortex.is/~jonr/ |
| These 3 always come on top in all reviews regarding image quality and features. The yesteryear cameras are wery good, and now wery cheap (Olympus C2000Z, Nikon CP950, Canon A50, I own A50) They all have decent resolution (1280x960) crystal clear and sharp images (more important than pixel count, IMHO) and good colors. You really should check out sites like Phil Askey's dpreview.com or Steve's Digicams for all the information you want. J. |
| Wanted: Camera+Wireless modem+Email (Score:1) by Money__ (hallada at msgto dot com) on Saturday April 22, @09:34AM EST (#86) (User Info) file:///C|/Windows/Exit%20To%20DOS.pif |
| These cameras are great, but having to use another computer as the "middle-hardware" to distribute the pictures has proven to be a needless step. Being able to instantly emailing the picture to another person has huuuuge advantages for a lot of users. Does such a thing exist? |
| Fuji MX-1700 (Score:2) by alkali (ab294@detroit.freenet.org) on Saturday April 22, @09:34AM EST (#87) (User Info) |
| I bought one of these primarily because of the form factor: I've been using a Canon Elph, and I couldn't see dragging around something as big as a Mavica. The resolution is reasonably good (topping out 1280 x 1024 in 24 bit color; e-mail me for a sample), and I have a USB SmartMedia card reader (less than $40) to transfer the pictures into my laptop or desktop. (The camera also has a very slow serial link; it comes with cables for PC and Mac.) Expect to buy one or more larger SmartMedia cards, as the 8MB card that comes with the unit takes about 11 pictures at the highest resolution, which IMHO is the only setting you'd really want to use it at. Also includes a 3x zoom (tolerable) and 2" LCD screen so you can inspect your pictures and dump bad ones to free up space on your cards. To me, the main benefit of a digital camera is that because there's essentially no marginal cost to taking pictures, I take a lot more of them, which makes the digital camera more fun. Current discounted street prices are around $450. FWIW, here's a buy.com link to the camera. I understand that Fuji has higher res models in this form factor now, but you'll naturally pay more. |
| Re:Fuji MX-1700 (Score:1) by freezerboy on Sunday April 23, @12:07AM EST (#385) (User Info) |
| Here is a pic I took with my Mx-1200. This camera takes a nice macro shot. It also takes a nice people shot. http://members.spree.com/sip/psychopompos/monsterblue2.jpg |
| It All Depends On You... (Score:1) by DaveLatham (davelatham@myself.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:37AM EST (#88) (User Info) |
| I recently shopped for one, and purchased one after doing a ton of reading and comparing online. But, there are so many out there with different trade offs, it all depends on what's important to you. I would really recommend starting by going to a site like Active Buyer's Guide which will allow you to give it preferences, and it will suggest cameras and allow you to compare several ones side by side. Then, start reading around about it. For some good expert evaluations, try: Megapixel Imaging Resource Steve's Digicams For some generally useful user reviews, check out: PC Photo Review Good Luck! |
| One of the most important things about a digicam (Score:1) by yerricde (change copyright to at: slash©pineight.8m.COM) on Saturday April 22, @09:45AM EST (#93) (User Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~yerricde/sd.html |
| is that it should support your platform. Most cameras don't support one or more of the following: BeOS, Mac OS Classic, Mac OS 10, FreeBSD, NetBSD, GNU/Linux, and Solaris. If you're on a Unix-like system, check the gPhoto compatibility list before you buy. Kill viruses. Kill hamsters. Infringe patents. |
| Digital camera experiences (Score:2, Informative) by BPFH (ssl@snowman.sgicnocrap.fi) on Saturday April 22, @09:46AM EST (#95) (User Info) http://www.snowman.sgic.fi/~ssl/ |
| I am currently into my 3rd digital camera, a Fuji MX-2900. My first one was Fuji DX-7 with 640x480 pixels, then came Olympus D-1400L with 1280x960 and the current one does 1800x1200. I found the jump from 1280 to 1800 suprisingly small. Experimenting with the new Fuji tends to yield less improvement over the Olympus that I expected. The main reason for the upgrade, however, was not the resolution, but the manual control offered my the latest cameras (manual focus, exposure and aperture). The Olympus C-2020Z seems to be a very popular choice these days, and this would have been my 1st option had I not got a lean deal with the Fuji. All of my cameras were supported under Linux (with gphoto / photopc or fujiplay). The things to look for IMHO are
YMMV. I'd get an Olympus if I were out shopping now. |
| Re:Digital camera experiences (Olympus) (Score:2, Informative) by David Rolfe (fromslashdot@shro0m.cx) on Saturday April 22, @03:21PM EST (#299) (User Info) http://www.shro0m.cx |
| I bought a Olympus D-340r quite a while back when they where fresh. At the time I got a great deal at $250. I still think this camera rules for sheer value. A small package, taking smartmedia up to 64mb. Because you are using smartmedia you've got lots of options for getting the stuff into your machine (works for me in linux, beos, and windows via serial, and windows with the little pc-card thingy). Images have great color, imho. It's quick when using jpg compression (HQ), but slow as hell on uncompressed tiffs (SHQ) -- I think the limitation is the flash cards. The macro distance is really short, so you can get right up on subjects. It also will take images at light levels that a (similarly priced) film camera can't touch. I think the D-340r is the best bang for the buck in the 1280x960 arena -- and they are even less expensive now. I've got some virgin images on my site that haven't been re-touched or re-sized (add /news onto the url up there). |
| Websites on the matter... (Score:1) by Kabby (sigma@(no.)junglist(.spam).org) on Saturday April 22, @09:48AM EST (#98) (User Info) http://outloud.org/me/ |
There are quite a few good websites analyzing and comparing various digital cameras. I wouldn't say one camera is hands-down the winner (although it would seem the great majority of digicam owners have a Nikon Coolpix 900, 950 and soon 990) but one should look at what he or she wants in a digital camera and choose the one that best fits their needs. I personally find the Canon Powershot series to be quite attractive, and plan on buying one of the two models (s10 or s20) before the end of this year. People interested in controlling the camera's aperture size and the like won't enjoy this camera, however I like its simplicity and image quality. I'll just be taking pictures of my computer and LAN parties anyway (hehe). Some people say that digital cameras can't replace film cameras. That is true, however for the average user it is truly more convenient, albeit more expensive at first but not necessarily in the longrun (remember, you never have to buy film and rechargeable NiMH batteries last a long time). The sites you can check are: |
| Re:The current state of things (Score:1) by Kabby (sigma@(no.)junglist(.spam).org) on Saturday April 22, @01:10PM EST (#257) (User Info) http://outloud.org/me/ |
| I merely mentioned what camera I was attracted to, I was careful not to recommend it to everyone. I know it isn't going to please all consumers, as the amount of control you have on that camera is rather limited. The quality of the pictures I have seen taken by others have been, to my eye, very appealing and its small size makes it very convenient. The features, albeit limited, are more than sufficient for a consumer like me - i.e., someone who just likes to take a picture and download it on mr. computer, not arrange aperture size, depth of field, interpolation, white balance and whatever other buzzword you can think up. For someone who is an amateur of photography, this camera is quite simply not going to do unless used with a regular camera, something a lot of amateur and even semi-professional photographs seem to do. What OS'es I use is probably of relevance. I use both Windows and FreeBSD. I don't believe that there are any drivers for Linux or BSD, there might be drivers for the Macintosh. However, I am certain that there is a COMPACTFLASH READER that can be used in Linux and BSD. Those are rarely expensive ($130 at most it seems, usually around $79-99) and are probably very convenient. I must admit I have yet to do research on the matter, but it would make more sense to me if someone concentrated on making drivers for a compactflash/smartmedia reader rather than going after every single digicam out there. Also, I never said that you can get a digital camera that will do EVERYTHING that you can do with a 35mm. I just happen to believe that for the average slashdot reader that doesn't know much about photography, they're most likely to be more convenient as we have frequent access to computers, power sources to recharge the batteries and (sometimes) enough money to buy goodies such as a microdrive for neverending picture-taking! The s10 and s20 both support the Microdrive, although it uses up more power than a regular compactflash card - meaning batteries will run out on you sooner (but you should still get good productivity out of it if you manage your picture-taking well). I know digital cameras are still expensive and don't offer quite as much as regular cameras (after all, they haven't been on the market as long - early 90's perhaps?), however they are gradually getting there and I'm guessing that in five to six years digital cameras will be as commonplace as CD players. Prices should go down, high-quality, feature-filled cameras should pop up from Nikon, Canon, Olympus and other manufacturers, and since everyone seems to have a computer (or more) these days, they should sell relatively well. Just my opinion though. In conclusion, I wasn't recommending the Powershot S10 or S20 (even though I believe them to be excellent cameras). I was strongly encouraging that anyone interested in buying a digital camera should read the different reviews on the sites I linked, and decide what unit would work best for their uses. |
| FujiFilm MX-2900 (Score:1) by pugman on Saturday April 22, @09:48AM EST (#100) (User Info) |
| I have been using the MX-2900 for about 6 months and can not complain. Resolution and clarity is among the best that I have seen from Mega Pixel cameras. The Slow serial interface sucks but ensures compatibility for Linux, it is supported in GPhoto, and Windows NT 4.0. If you insist on USB, digital film readers are fairly inexpensive and allows you to share media with family and friends. God luck to you |
| Digital Cameras are far superior in certain cases (Score:1) by marcsiry (marc@spambegone.siry.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:49AM EST (#102) (User Info) |
| Sure, digital isn't going to kill film anytime soon- but you didn't throw away your gas-fired oven when you got a microwave, did you? When the ultimate usage of your images is going to be digital, such as a photo galley posted to a web page, the simplicity of downloading your photos to your computer far exceeds any "convenience" of dropping off your film at a half hour developing stand, then scanning each photo. When you factor in the cost of film and development, especially if you don't intend to make prints of the images, a digital camera becomes a far simpler and cheaper solution. Additionally, when you don't have to worry about "wasting" film, you're free to take many more photos than you would with a film camera. I shoot over 300 pictures a month on my Fuji MX-1700; my wife still has film in her camera from last Thanksgiving! |
| The best (Score:1) by nordicfrost on Saturday April 22, @09:51AM EST (#103) (User Info) |
| I work at a large newspaper, and can remember that 10 years ago, the testing with digital photograhpy started. It is still not acceptable for every day use. And have _the_ best cameras. The cameras are modified Canon EOS 1's. I think the type is Canon EOS 1 D-P (Digital, press edition.) They are fitted with a SCSI interface and a HDD. And they are expensive. Really expensive. The paper bought some for approx. 150 000 NOK, about 18 750 USD. But the reuslt is very impressive, although for enlargements, the 35 mm is superior (Even to APS and Advantix) and will remain so for quite a time. |
| Kodak - forget Sony (Score:2, Informative) by fleener (schonchin@no_spam_thanks_yahoo.com) on Saturday April 22, @09:52AM EST (#104) (User Info) |
| I had been an early adopter of the Sony Mavica, sold on floppy disk storage... but after you've tried bulk storage, you never go back. I'm a fan of the Kodak DC290, which uses compact flash cards for image storage (which I can also swap into my handheld PC). I own a DC265, which is 1.5 years old, takes 1536 x 1024 images, and its output has been fine for print publications (except glossy stuff). The camera came with a 16MB card, which takes about 40 photos at max quality. I bought a 40 meg card and get about 100 photos, which gives me all the storage I need, with no need to carry around 140 floppy disks! (Plus, the average user doesn't need max quality, for web or screen output. I could easily take hundreds of photos at lower quality.) Kodak owners should join the digita mailing list which is excellent for peer technical support. The DC220, 260, 265, and 290 cameras run the Digita operating system, which allows you to write custom configuration scripts (for example, quickly set your camera for certain lighting conditions you encounter frequently). The only major drawback with the Kodak (and most digitial cameras) is that it cannot go fully manual like the Mavica and has only the standard 3X zoom. But, I gladly trade that for Kodak's many other merits (and I'll buy a zoom lens if it ever becomes really important). Its auto settings and white balancing make it really easy for me to hand this camera to my mom or other helpless person and still get nice photos. The DC290 is currently selling in the $680 range at shopper.com. (dang, my DC265 originally cost $800!) |
| y'all forget ...Ink fades !!! (Score:1) by iKev (7kcsl@qlink.spam.queensu.ca) on Saturday April 22, @09:55AM EST (#106) (User Info) |
| If you want an easy way to share photos with friends/family over the net, then digital is the obvious choice. Check photo.net. Phil has done a great job with that site. Cameras like the Canon Powershot S10/S20 are really good for that purpose. However, if you intend on taking photos to print out, I would say get a film camera. I don't know if it is any cheaper, but unless you are using top-of the line archival quality ink, the photos printed from *any* inkjet printer will fade rapidly...and even then, film is still probably better (for now). expect a film print to stand up much more than an inkjet print.. |
| Olympus D340-R (Score:2, Informative) by Leomania on Saturday April 22, @10:06AM EST (#120) (User Info) |
I own an Olympus D340-R, and I chose it for the following reasons:
I take lots of pictures of my daughter with it, and it's fantastic getting them up on our family website right away. The only downside found so far is that the camera doesn't pass the drop test. It hit our hardwood floor last week and was broken both mechanically and electrically. But Olympus fixes the camera for a flat $106 rate, so I'm pretty pleased about that. For $299 retail and a bit less than that from camera stores in NY, it's a great film camera replacement. Pictures printed onto real film at Eframes looked excellent up to 4x6. I only use the 1280x960 mode, so even 5x7 looks pretty good - Leomania |
| The 340s will go *poof* soon in favor of the 360 (Score:2) by Andy Dodd (atd7@cornellNO.SPAMedu) on Saturday April 22, @10:19AM EST (#135) (User Info) http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/atd7/ |
| The 340 now has a successor, the D-360L. It improves a number of new features, and I think some places actually sold it for less! (Similar to being able to find the C-2020 cheaper than the C-2000) I wish that company that was creating "digital film" for 35mm SLRs would get their damn product out. Oh, and make it cost less... It was basically a 35mm film canister with a CCD that would convert any 35mm camera into a digicam. Unfortunately, last I checked they intended to sell it for over $700-800 despite the fact that digital cameras with optics,LCD, etc. run in the $300 and up range. |
| Re:Olympus D340-R (Score:1) by jmp100 on Saturday April 22, @09:16PM EST (#368) (User Info) |
| One thing I HAVE to say about the D340-R is that if you go to the Image menu in the CAMEDIA Master software that comes with it, there's an "Instant Fix" option available when an image is loaded. This will make 29 out of 30 photos look MUCH better (brighter, crisper, sharper). |
| Cameras (Score:1) by greysoul (greysoul@greymatter(dot)org) on Saturday April 22, @10:07AM EST (#122) (User Info) http://www.greymatter.org |
| Ok, before i start I have two URLs for anyone intrested, first is Philip Greenspun's photo.net guide to digitals, albeit a bit outdated, has sound advise. Second is the Altamira software. I have played with this, and it has a 20 use free demo. What it lets you do is use a fractal algorithm thingy to upsample lower resolution images to a high enough res to print, this is GREAT, it works well, and the results, while not as sharp as if you had started with hi-res, are decent enough for snapshots to show friends. And no, I dont work for them, but I wish I did :) Now, on to my 2¢ Well, being a photographer I have to throw in my 2¢ (yes, a real photographer, I make money selling pictures)... The world of digital is, intresting, to say the least. It's my feelings that digital has a _LONG_ way to go before it takes over film. In the pro photo market 35mm is only one type of film. Digital cameras today can take on 35mm for under $5000 and with a decent printer, and some software, yes, you too can be a digital photographer. However my personal aditude towards it is that digiutal cameras are _GREAT_ for only one thing, websites. I currently own a Kodak DC215 and an Olympus D630 and both of them shoot high enough res to be used to print a fairly sharp 5x7 but nothing more. With the bigger cameras, the kodak modeks based on the Canon EOS system, and the nikon D1 you can get a decent 8x10 and those are in the $5000 range. Most consumers will never have need for a snapshot biugger than 8x10, so I feel that these cameras "do the job" but I think they're best for just putting images on the web, and doing a photo archive of your life. For the print/advertising world however, who often times deals with putting images on billboards, buses, and even buildings, a cheap digital camera doesn't cut it. Megavision and Lightwave Inc. both make high quality backs for medium and large format camneras that start around $20k and go up to a bit over $100k and these are getting to the point where they can be used for billboards and such, but most firms still prefer film. So...from this photographer, I say film is the way to go for at least another 10 years, and as an artform, I dont think film will go away in my life time. That's my 2¢ anjoy :) greysoul is at http://www.greymatter.org |
| Battery Life (Score:1) by airos4 (dominodots@email.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:14AM EST (#127) (User Info) |
| I've played with several different brands/models of camera, and the one uniting factor that I found is that they will all run a standard set of batteries flat in no time at all. This is exacerbated if you use the LCD screen to aim for long periods of time, or if you need the flash on every shot. I finally ended up with a Kodak DC215 (good quality, cheap deal ) and I am right now examining what battery options I have.. because this sucker will kill a set of 4 alkaline AAs in ten pictures or less. |
| Model comparisons (Score:2) by Anonymous Shepherd (louisjr@cco.caltech.edu) on Saturday April 22, @10:14AM EST (#132) (User Info) http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~louisjr |
| I'm hoping this gets moderated enough for people to see it; or that people see the title and respond. So here's a list of low end cameras that seem really nice: Epson PhotoPC650 Kodak DC10+ Kodak DC15Zoom For about less than $350. Questions include software reliability, picture quality, ease of use, battery usage, etc. For the more expensive cameras, here's a representative list: Epson PhotoPC750Zoom Kodak DC240Zoom Casio QV2000+(340mb microDrive!) Canon S10 For about $800 or less. Any comments on these models? -AS *Pikachu* |
| Casio QV-2000 (Score:2) by mosch (i_charge_1000USD_to_receive_uce@overtone.org) on Saturday April 22, @11:45AM EST (#205) (User Info) |
| I have to say, I love this camera, the only thing that's wrong with it is a flimsy feeling lens cover, IMHO. In the past months I've purchased four of them with the 340 meg IBM microdrives. One for myself, my sister, my father and my girlfriend. Of these people, I'm the only computer-ish one, and they all love their cameras. They're great because with the microdrive you have enough storage to go on vacation for a week or two, take lots of photos, and not have to sync to a laptop or something. (who wants to bring their computer on vacation? oh, i forgot, this is /. probably a lot of people.) The picture quality is excellent, and while no, it will not supplant the professional style 35mm camera with lots of lenses and filters and such, it does a nice job of replacing the average 35mm point and shoot. While I wish it were smaller (if they made one that looked like my Elph, that'd be great), it's a great little camera, with decent battery life, good picture quality (colour balance is fairly accurate and such) and easy to use operation. As for price, I honestly am not sure. I believe they ran a tad over $500 for the camera plus $350-ish for the microdrive to buy seperate and there's some sort of deal if you buy the camera with the microdrive. ---------------------------- Stupidity should be painful. |
| Thanks... (Score:2) by Anonymous Shepherd (louisjr@cco.caltech.edu) on Saturday April 22, @12:37PM EST (#236) (User Info) http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~louisjr |
| As for your Elph, doesn't the Canon S10 also take the IBM microDrive? It's relatively small, compared to the QV2k+ Yeah, the bundled deal is $799 for microDrive plus camera. How about upload and such? There's no synching problems for you? I run NT, and Linux, but no 9x machines in my house. Would like to be able to upload my pictures to my PC... -AS *Pikachu* |
| Re:Thanks... (Score:1) by mosch (i_charge_1000USD_to_receive_uce@overtone.org) on Sunday April 23, @01:06AM EST (#393) (User Info) |
| I sync to a Macintosh, so I don't have first hand experience with syncing to any of the Win OSs. I know my sister and my lady sync to win98se machines and it seems easy enough. There is supposedly NT software to sync this camera, but I can't give first hand user experience on it, sorry. As for the Canon, yep, it appears that it does take a Microdrive. Unfortunately I didn't know about it at the time of purchase, so I haven't a clue if it has good optics or anything else. An interesting possibility for the future though ---------------------------- Stupidity should be painful. |
| Mavica is the reliable choice. (Score:1) by Interested Guy (jreighley@yahoo.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:17AM EST (#133) (User Info) http://www.icehouse.net/reighley |
| I provide tech support for a few different Digital cameras. From a Tech Support veiwpoint, I think that the Mavica cannot be beat. We have about 50 Kodak 260s at work and they are nothing but trouble. The FAT on the pic card gets corrupted all of the time. There is just too many points of failure. The pic card must be seated proplerly in the adapter card, the adapter card must be seated properly in the PCMCIA port. (Which is hard to do.) While installing thier picture card, our users often bump thier network card, and get knocked off of the network. If they try to reboot while the card is installed, Mic$@#$#ft NT will not start. We also support a few Mavicas that work without fail. Substantially less can go wrong. Plug in the floppy, and load your pictures. |
| Coolpix 950 & Olympus 320 (Score:1) by vanyel on Saturday April 22, @10:19AM EST (#136) (User Info) |
| I currently have a Coolpix 950, which replaced an Olympus 320L which took a dive, never to be seen again. It was not missed, as it was way too slow, although otherwise it was a nice camera. I suspect the main drawback to the current version, the 360L, is the use of Smartmedia, which comes in limited capacities (max 32M at the moment, I believe). The coolpix uses CompactFlash, and I have a 64Meg card which holds 66 hi-res pix --- about enough for a day's shooting while being a snap happy tourista. I refuse to buy a memory stick camera --- why in hell did sony think Yet Another Memory Format was needed? Just another pathetic attempt to lock users in with a proprietary format. But I digress. The 950 is a great camera, and I'm quite happy with it, but it has a couple of quirks: Every time the power comes back on, for any reason, the lens zooms to full telephoto. Most of my shots are somewhat wider, forcing me to constantly fuss with the zoom. It eats batteries --- a set will not last long enough to fill the 66 pix I can put on the 64Meg flashcard. Have multiple sets of fully charged rechargeables on hand. And the camera, while much faster than previous generations, is still slower than I would like. From the 1/2 second or so delay when you press the shutter, to the several second delay to store the picture, there's much room for improvement. Nevertheless, I'll never go back to film. These pictures are as good as anything I ever put on film... |
| Clearly this is subjective (Score:2, Informative) by Paul Komarek (komarek@andrew.cmu.edu) on Saturday April 22, @10:21AM EST (#139) (User Info) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~komarek |
I think it is clear that your choice in cameras depends on several quantifiable aspects, like price and storage medium, and harder-to-quantify aspects like battery life (this varies widely between users) and image quality. The two best review sites I've seen are the Digital Camera Resource and the Imaging Resource. The former has shorter reviews and better reader comments, while the latter has very comprehensive reviews and image comparisons. I typically use the Digital Camera resource to narrow down the search, and then use the Imaging Resource to compare image quality. Imaging Resrouce also measures how long between pressing the shutter release and when the picture is taken, something I think is important to consider if you photograph moving subjects. I've bought/helped buy 4 cameras in the last couple years. For myself I have a Kodak DC-260, and I've suggested one Nikon Coolpix 950, a Kodak DC-215, and a Kodak DC-280. The Kodak cameras I've mentioned here all have amazing image quality, and the DC-215 is rather inexpensive as it is old and produces 1152x864 images. The Nikon also takes great pictures, and has a lot of features. I think all of these cameras work fine with linux, my DC-260 certainly does. These cameras were bought at different times with different people's needs in mind. A friend has an Olympus D-340L, which takes good pictures (though it's color saturation isn't as good as the Kodaks') and is fabulous indoors without a flash (something the Kodaks aren't very good at). Note that the Kodak's aren't known for rapid picture-taking ability. The Casio 2000UX lost to the DC-280 on image quality, but it had an interesting feature set. The Coolpix 950 beat the Kodak DC-265 in features, and had comparable image quality. The DC-215 beat the comparable Olympus cameras on price, and especially beat the Olympus D-400, which has complaints about lack of lavender hues. I've never liked the image quality on Sony's older cameras, and I think the floppy disks are too small or else the lossy image compression is too aggressive (don't know which). Memory format isn't that big of an issue, and neither is USB capability, because of dedicated card readers. Time between shutter release and the picture being taken will affect every picture you take. Low-light ability may be important to you. Image quality reigns supreme for me, and is an area where Kodak does well (except perhaps the DC-240). Point-and-click versus configurable f-stops, etc, will make a difference for some people. And if you've got $5000 to blow, check out the high end 6 megapixel SLR digital cameras from Kodak! One last bit of advice--try to get a 'satisfaction guaranteed' return policy. If the camera's pictures come out a little to red, is that a defect? Better safe than sorry. -Paul Komarek |
| Re:Clearly this is subjective (Score:1) by Ravenwing on Saturday April 22, @10:08PM EST (#376) (User Info) |
| I have to second the motion for the Digital Camera Resource! I knew very little about cameras and especially digital cameras. Every camera seemed to boast about a different feature, until I didn't know what was important for me to consider. This site asked me questions, explained the pros and cons of various features, narrowed it down through comparisons and finally gave me a list of cameras. I read the consumer reviews and looked at the professional image comparisions that were linked to from the site. In the end, I picked the Casio QV2000 with the IBM microdrive and I'm very happy with it, as is my friend who went through a similar process at dcresource.com and chose the Casio. It certainly made me feel better about spending that much money - I was confident that I'd chosen a camera that would meet my needs (and surpassed them in a couple areas - it can go completely manual, if I want and does mpegs). -- Raven |
| Casio QV8000-SX rocks (Score:1) by reverend[RIP] (shadow@zero-ping.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:22AM EST (#140) (User Info) http://www.zero-ping.com/rip |
| I'll tell you what, for the money ($512 on buycomp), you cannot beat the QV-8000SX. It has a great set of features: shutter speed control from 1/2000th to 64seconds, a night mode, a kick ass panoramic mode, 43mm threads to accept standard camera lens/filters, USB and Serial, 2.x megapixel, huge bright viewscreen. It's small and lite. The only down side is lack of an optical viewfinder, other than that, this camera rocks. check it out. |
| Re:Casio QV8000-SX rocks (Score:1) by computx (fleak@email.com) on Saturday April 22, @10:05PM EST (#375) (User Info) |
| i have the same camera and i agree. its the most camera available for around $500 especially if you want more than 3 x zoom. this camera really burns up the batteries though. |
| Kodak DC-215 (Score:1) by Shambug on Saturday April 22, @10:27AM EST (#146) (User Info) http://devilfish.dhs.org |
| I have a kodak DC 215 and im QUITE ipressed with it i got the special millenium edition, which coeted a bit more, and you cant git anymore. the only diff is that it comes with an 8mg CF card instead of a 4, and it has a cool shiny glodlike case. but the normal DC-215 is a GREAT bargain, its a great camera for $300. good resolution, good loooking images, and its a pleasure to use. i would recoment this camera like a crazy mofo. and the higher end kodaks like the DC-240 are even nicer, with bigger optical zooms and such but for its price this camera is an incredible deal -Sham |
| Re:Kodak DC-215 (Score:1) by British on Saturday April 22, @10:53AM EST (#170) (User Info) http://british.nerp.net |
| THe DC-215's an incredible value. Besides getting Kodak quality(I used plenty of higher up Kodak models at work), you can actually zoom in and out with it! This is something I've only noticed on much more expensive cameras. The CF reader(in the mill. edition) very much saves on battery life and it's less of a hassle to use. If you have all the money in the world, get the AGFA 1680. This takes INCREDIBLE pictures. Avoid the Polaroid PDC 700 at all costs. I returned mine. Picture quality was horrible. Kids love the rich taste of web content! http://british.nerp.net |
| Make sure you know what you want to do with it. (Score:1) by madstork2000 on Saturday April 22, @10:27AM EST (#147) (User Info) |
| I have had experience with many digital camera over the past 3-4 years. They started out as a toy, but I have found them very useful for my business as a web designer as well. I currently own a Olympus 620L. It's resolution is a bit low by today's standards, but it has a number of imporovemnets over the 500L and 600L that preceded it. Namely a "fast" buffer, so you can quickly snap 5 pictures. This is a must feature for me since I have a young toddler, and getting him to hold still is darn near impossible. it also works well for action shots of my ferrets. The flash is not as fast, so when you use burst mode you need a lot of light (best outside on a sunny day). Over all I really like the quality, with the new epson photo printers I have prints that are instinguishable from photo lab prints even using a magnifying glass. (at about 4x6" size. I have had good experience with prints up to 8x10") the lower resolution (compared to newer models) comes into play after that (1280x1024). Though the vast majority of the pictures I take end up on the web, and I often use the lowest resultion for those (640x517). I also have an older ricoh 2E (I think, its on lone to a friend.) It doesn't have a flash so It kinda stinks for indoors or action shots. It does however do much better than any camera on close up shots. (it does not have any type of zoom, but it works well for fishtank shots, and for textures. It aso supports direct output to television, and can act as a limited video camera, which makes it fun at parties, or even presentations, because you can upload jpg "sides" and show them on any TV with a RCA input. All in all the best camera is one that suits your needs the best. Try out as many as you can first, if you are going to use it for prints, make sure you test that (Walgreens has photo print kiosks that you can use to print straight from a floppy for about $7 if you don't have a printer, the quality is great!). Good Luck, -MS2k |
| Fuji MX-2900 (Score:1) by dmv (dmv@transient systems) on Saturday April 22, @10:30AM EST (#148) (User Info) |
| I've had a lot of success with the MX-2900. Its a pretty nice camera in the mid-high end (that is, its not your standard party camera). 2.3 MP, 1800x1200; its not got the best of user interfaces, but that's for the non-geeks. For the geeks, its easy to use and has way too many features. I like manual control of all aspects of my 35mm camera, and this one has it. It uses SmartMedia, which is cheap and cute. There is some basic support under linux for the camera, and the software that comes with it is lame. However, given that the images are typically 300 or 900+k, transfering over serial sucks. Get a smartmedia PC card adapter (assuming a laptop) and you can transfer at 20Mbits/sec, which is much nicer. And linux supports them very well - you just mount the card as a harddrive. If you want a geek's camera, with gorgeous resolution and images, and like to play with the best... and are willing to spend the money (though cheaper than its comparable units), check out the 2900. |
| If you are looking for the best digital camera.... (Score:1) by Andy14 on Saturday April 22, @10:38AM EST (#154) (User Info) http://www.strauss.nu |
| If you do some research, you will find that the casio QV3000Plus is the BEST camera on the market. First, in terms of quality, it is a true 3.34 mega pixel camera(this means it will do 3.34 mega pixels NON INTERPOLATED) and will do these at a stunning resolution of 2048x1536. This already puts it in a catergory by itself. Well.....these pictures must take up a lot of space so what about storage? Well, it has 16mb of compact flash, like most cameras, which is kinda skimpy, BUT IT ALSO HAS A 340MB IBM MICRODRIVE BUILT IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THis is a total of 356mb of usable memory! Once again, this puts it in a category by itself. It also has all the extras of a high quality camera....a decent zoom, avi movie ability, great flash, etc, etc. It is very light weight and stylish. Upon looking into it, you will find that it is THE BEST camera money can buy |
| Sony Digital Mavica (Score:2) by sinnergy (froggy@eecs.cwru.edu) on Saturday April 22, @10:39AM EST (#157) (User Info) |
| I've been very pleased with my Sony Digital Mavica FD91. Yeah, it doesn't use compact flash and yeah, you only get about 10 *good* pictures per diskette, but the pictures it does take rival most of the pictures other digital cameras take. It's super convenient, super easy to use and, except for lack of a hot mount for an extrnal flash (for really big rooms that are rather dark), I couldn't ask for more. The fact that you can mount it on a tripod makes it even more useful. Do some research, you'll find the sony's are in super hot demand (It's one of the few items on Ebay where you can recoup almost all of what you spent on it...). As an avid photographer, I couldn't be more pleased with mine! - CWRUton for Life - (sad but true!) |
| Nikon CoolPix series: super quality (Score:1) by shall555 (stephenhall@ANTISPAMearthlink.net) on Saturday April 22, @10:41AM EST (#159) (User Info) |
| I've just finished my first all-digital shoot and really like the results. When I compare my costs with those of my last analog shoot, it's no contest. My last analog shoot had $ 15-20 in film costs, $35 in process and contact sheet costs, then $ 450.00 in 8x10 custom color and B&W prints ( ~ 20 ). My latest studio session, all digital, is here. I was floored by the ability to review shots quickly on my laptop and discard the less-than-perfect ones. These shots were taken in the Nikon 950's "Normal" mode and have been scaled down for the web. They wind up as 250-300K JPEGs. Nikon's "Fine" mode would produce images about 6-8 MB in size (TIFFs). The Nikon CoolPix 9xx series offer a smokin' macro mode that biologists, naturalists and physicians have jumped on. Essentially, it comes down to what you need. For family snapshots, get an easy-to-use cam like the Mavica or other point-and-shoot. If you're a serious amateur, get something that offers camera controls like: "shutter" speed, ISO, aperture, flash, manual focus, image quality, etc. If you're a pro, get a Nikon D1 . As others have mentioned, Digital Photography Review is a terrific resource if you're researching digicams. Lots of pros and serious amateurs post experiences, measured performance and images that'll assist in a decision about "which camera?". Cheers, shall |
| Olympus blows the competition away (Score:1) by TunaPhish on Saturday April 22, @10:41AM EST (#161) (User Info) |
| I have had and used my Olympus D-450Z Digital Camera since about Christimas of last year and I love it! It has many advantages over other cameras and such. First of all, it's shaped like a normal camera! The front slides open to reveal the lens (similar to Olympus film cameras), and it's not big and bulky, like the floppy disk kind (or even some memory stick ones I've seen). The quality on these cameras is nothing to laugh about either! Super-High-Quality stores the images as 1280x960 TrueColor JPEGs. High-Quality stores them at 1280x960 (24bit I think, maybe 16) JPEGs. The lowest quality setting stores them at 640x480. Included with the camera is an 8mb smartmedia card. At SHQ, it stores 12 images, at HQ, it stores 36, and at LQ, it stores 118! That's just 8mb though. I believe that they sell up to 64. I love my little screen also, because in an hour lets say I take 20 HQ pictures. I can scroll through them quickly and delete everything I don't want or came out blurry for some reason. I can get the pics on my computer four different ways, the first (and slowest) is with a serial cable. The camera also has a RCA video out on it, so I can show my pictures in a slide show on a tv. I can get a USB device that reads the smartmedia super-duper fast, but the best thing I think is a little floppy disk adapter that I can put the smartmedia in. That way, it can go onto ANY computer. I know that battery power is something people always complain about, especially if they like to use the digital display a lot. I don't blame them! The Olympus D-450Z takes four AA batteries. Yeah, on normal batteries it doesn't last me a week, but I found these energizer lithium batteries at the hardware store (I think I saw them at the shack also), and four of those lasted my two months, running the flash and the screen all the time! wow! Maybe I'm biased, but I've used several cameras and if I had the choice I'd stick with the Olympus brand. Honestly, I haven't seen any higher quality pictures than with it. ------ Whadda know? I think I see DeCSS, LiViD, and css-auth here! |
| Detailed Reviews of Digital Cameras (Score:1) by ereuter (ereuter@erikreuter.net) on Saturday April 22, @10:48AM EST (#164) (User Info) http://www.erikreuter.com/ |
| Here is an excellent website that has many in-depth reviews of digital cameras, including sample pictures: http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM 01.HTM They also review Kodak's Picture CD where you can take your standard print film to a regular film development house and for about $8-10 extra get back a CD with your pictures in addition to the prints. (resolution about 1.5K by 1K, but equivalent in quality to most 2Megapixel cameras) -- Erik Reuter |
| Casio QV-3000 (Score:1) by magi (magi@removethis.iki.fi) on Saturday April 22, @10:50AM EST (#166) (User Info) http://www.iki.fi/magi/ |
| I have just spent about two weeks (almost full-time) looking at digital camera reviews. It is definitely not an easy task. I am used to a 15-years old SLR camera and it was really hard to find a digicam that comes even near it with quality and features. First thing you must always remember is that every camera is a tradeoff - you get something and lose something. There isn't any "best camera for this money", but you must balance between features. Some tradeoffs are even theoretical - if you put more pixels in a CCD, the less light each pixel will receive and you get poor low-light capability and lots of noise. Cameras with big zooms generally have little pixels and poor sensitivity (big F-number; F2.0 is very good, F6.0 or more is rather bad). I decided to take Casio QV-3000. It is definitely a very good value/money, especially in USA with the 340MB Microdrive bundle. I ordered mine from Germany for about 800 euro, without the drive (they don't offer the bundle here). The Microdrive costs about 450 euro separately. QV-3000 has very bright (sensitive) optics - F2.0. The optical zoom is 3x (about 35mm-105mm). Resolution 3.34Mpixels (about 2048x1550). Very long exposure times (up to 60s), good manual controls for exposure and focus. Capability for Microdrive. Eats AA-sized NiMH batteries (they are cheap so you can buy a lot of them). Good connections (USB, RS-232, IrDA-TranP, Video). Plus some other nice features. Tradeoffs are lack of external flash connection, slow pic-to-pic-time (3-6sec), a bit weight, and some minor things. Canon Powershot S20, Nikon Coolpix 990, and the Olumpys C-2500 and C-3030 are very competitive in the same resolution group. They have perhaps slightly more clear pictures and better colors, but that varies greatly on conditions, and often QV-3000 is much better. QV-3000 also a bit cheaper than the competitors, at least in Europe. But, as I've emphasized, it's always a tradeoff. My QV-3000 will arrive in mail next week. I hope it turns to be *nice*. Look at: www.imaging-resource.com, www.steves-digicams.com, www.dpreview.com |
| just reviewed them (Score:1) by willb on Saturday April 22, @10:52AM EST (#169) (User Info) |
| There are some great review sites, like http://www.imaging-resource.com/ I am getting a Nikon 990. It has nearly all the features I want (except voice) at a good price (899). |
| My Canon A5Z (positive) (Score:1) by cybersquid on Saturday April 22, @10:59AM EST (#173) (User Info) http://mucus.com |
Short answer: the Canon PowerShot rocks! Background: Early 1999 my wife & I were planning a vacation & I wanted a digital camera. After some research, (and two-hours of owning a very bad Agfa) I decided on the Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom. My criteria (and rationale) were:
The A5Z was then "last years model", about to be replaced by the A50. The A50 is essentially identical, but with a higher resolution. So, the A5Z was cheap ($350). I added a battery charger ($90), two more rechargable (NiMH) batteries ($30 x 2) and a second 8MB CF ($40). Remember, these are early '99 prices. Total cost: $570. There were several cameras with similar capabilities (Olympus, Nikon and Minolta) but none were as small OR as cheap. The results since then have been excellent. I have been very happy. Several of my friend have tried it, and bought their own A50's. They really like theirs as well. The current versions of this camera are, the A50, S10 & S20. The S series has added USB, even higher resolution and Type-II CF (which can take a hard drive). If I was buying a new camera today, I think the S20 would be my baby. One recommendation though: do buy a charger and extra batteries. |
| MUST HAVE if you're buying a digicam... (Score:1) by jeddz on Saturday April 22, @04:26PM EST (#313) (User Info) |
| I'd like to second the vote for the Canon A5 Zoom. What a pleasure of a camera. My only complaint about the camera is that the top metal plate of the turning-knob-thingy comes off too easily. A problem easily fixed with some superglue...nevertheless. A must have, though, is a card reader. This RADICALLY changes how you use your camera. I have the USB Cameramate from Microtech. If you're a Wintel user, it allows you to mount the card reader as lettered drives (e.g. G:\), then getting pictures off your card is just a matter of inserting the card, then browsing to the drive and copying pictures off like files. And it's quick since it's USB. |
| Canon Powershot Pro 70 (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @11:11AM EST (#182) |
I have owned and used a Canon Powershot Pro 70 for about 9 months now, and have enjoyed it greatly. My main reason for purchasing it was ergonomic; it is shaped like a 35mm camera with a short lens mounted, which I find gave me a good grip and made it intuitive to use. I had looked at both the Nikon Coolpix 900 and Kodak DC 265, and picked the Canon for the above point. Strengths of the Canon Powershot Pro 70:
I worry about the long-term viability of the fine connections related to the Flash cards through all the remove/install cycles, but the speed of transfer can't be beat! My thoughts:
|
| At the risk of sounding troll-ish.... (Score:1) by JudgePagLIVR on Saturday April 22, @11:12AM EST (#184) (User Info) |
| I'd like to mention that along with digital cameras, the market has also offered up several inkjet printers that can print images straight off the camera - no computer nessecary! For instance, check out the Lexmark 5770 which can print images off of flash cards from most digital cameras. Also, take a look at the Kodak PM100 which can print pics from the following cameras. OK, end of troll. To be fair, both these printers are sold by Lexmark, and I am an employee thereof. On the other hand, I'm also a 5770 owner, and it really performs. I quit using film the day I hooked it up. and, o'course, the fact that you can buy a cd to allow the 5770 to run on Solaris never hurts :) Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed |
| Physics? (Score:1) by Strange Attractor on Saturday April 22, @11:14AM EST (#186) (User Info) http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~andy/ |
| What are the physical limits on the performance of silver halide film vs CCD? My son (at my shoulder) asks, "don't you know the answer?"; Nope. But I've wondered for a while. It seems to me that if silver catches more photons than a CCD, that there will allways be a place for film, but if not then it is only a matter of time before the film is completely obsolete. |
| Take one of these: (Score:1) by charon.de (ktm@fish.co.jp) on Saturday April 22, @11:16AM EST (#188) (User Info) |
| You can get a very good one if you take one of the Nikon coolpix models. When money is not a question, you should although take a look at the Nikon D1, it makes amazing pictures and you can use all your old "mirror-reflex" Nikon compatible stuff. But remember not to be to far away from the batt-charger...:-) Yours Michael |
| AGFA e-Photo 1680 (Score:1) by gaggio (ms_sucks40@hotmail.com) on Saturday April 22, @11:18AM EST (#191) (User Info) |
| I have had this camera for a while right now. If you are looking for very high quality pictures, this is the one to buy right now. I think that the price dropped down a lot since I bought it (a year ago): it should be around $500 if you go to PriceWatch. The only thing I can say about it is that it is EX-CEL-LENT. |
| Re:AGFA e-Photo 1680 (Score:1) by British on Saturday April 22, @12:05PM EST (#214) (User Info) http://british.nerp.net |
| We have one of these at work. I was surprised by the crystal-clear quality of the pictures. No funky artifacts, good color saturation, etc. The only downside is the funky European GUI and that there's no viewfinder. Kids love the rich taste of web content! http://british.nerp.net |
| get a 35mm (Score:1) by Yablo (fordb (@) flatirons.org) on Saturday April 22, @11:18AM EST (#192) (User Info) http://fordb.flatirons.org |
| they are a lot more fun. they dont take the fun out of photographhy. part of photography is the entire experience. take the pictures. adjusting the f-stops and exposure times, smelling the bitter smell of developing chemicals, and being in the darkroom are what make photography what it is. dont get me wrong: i love the new technologies that are changing everyday, but some things dont need to change. like photograpy. to me, all the digital stuff totally ruins the entire expierence of taking your own pictures. //Yablo | http://fordb.flatirons.org |
| Nikon Nikon Nikon... can't beat the swiv (Score:2) by jbridges on Saturday April 22, @11:19AM EST (#193) (User Info) |
| No other camera has the unique two part body of the Nikon Coolpix 9xx series. It's amazingly useful! Imagine not having to hold the damn camera up in front of your face?! You can take shots of yourself, over your shoulder, up down, to the left, to the right, enourmously handy. You can get a CoolPix 950 for under $500 after rebate since the CoolPix 990 has just come out (street price around $850). I'd get a 950, and spend the rest on a a few sets of NIMh batteries (forget standard AA for any digital camera) with charger, and at least 128mb of CF. You did realize it comes with a pitiful 8mb card, right? (all the digital cameras come with pitiful storage out of the box). What would you rather have, a bunch of crummy lo-res jpegs taken on a 3mega pixel camera, or a bunch of super crisp tiffs (or low compression jpegs) taken with a 2mega pixel camera? Spend your money on storage and batteries. The 990 is higher res, has a brighter display, and USB. The brighter display is for outdoors, but even with the brightest display, it's still pretty much hopeless in full sunlight, you need either a little hood, or use the viewfinder. The USB at first sounds great... then you realize that USB is around 120k bytes per second... Hmmm, so 120mb of pictures takes 1000 seconds to download, or over 15 minutes, Yikes! What you want is the PCMCIA adapter, forget USB except for tiny little batches. With PCMCIA you can copy data off the card faster than your machine can write them to a harddrive. Besides, the drivers for CF PCMCIA are built into every os that supports PCMCIA, so you can plug it into any laptop and dump your photos, or even edit them directly from the CF. Of course if you have the bucks, go buy a CoolPix 990 and a 160mb CF card! (no the CoolPix 990 doesn't support CF Type II, so it won't work with the IBM Microdrive, but then I think 160mb is just fine, and isn't the harddrive a LOT slower and use more power than CF?) By far the best review site is Steve Digicams http://www.steves-digicams.com |
| some AGFAs swivel, too (Score:1) by lophophore on Saturday April 22, @07:53PM EST (#353) (User Info) |
| I have an AGFA ePHOTO 1280, had it for about 2 years. It swivels, too. It is native 1024 x 768 and uses SSFDC cards... there are 3 kinds of people: * those who can count * those who can't |
| Re:some AGFAs swivel, too (Score:1) by jbridges on Sunday April 23, @07:03AM EST (#416) (User Info) |
| I got a correction from a friend as well that has an older Philips that swivels. Do any current models swivel like the Nikon? |
| /. digicam primer (Score:1) by Matias on Saturday April 22, @11:27AM EST (#197) (User Info) http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~ematias |
I was wondering when this topic would appear on /. I did a lot of research into digital cameras last year. I didn't buy one, but here's some of the info I found . . . How good of a camera you need (and how much you end up spending on one) depends on what you plan to do with the pictures. If all you want to do is post pix on the web, any 1-megapixel (or less) camera should do a respectable job for you, since web pix are generally low res (640 x 480 or less). At 72 ppi screen res, that's 8.9 x 6.7 inches (pretty big). What you need the extra pixels for is printing photos onto paper. There's a big controversy over the resolution photos should be printed at, with the general consensus being in the 150 to 300 ppi range. Generally, you should avoid printing at less than 200 ppi. At 200ppi, you'll need a 1 mp camera to print a standard 4x6 shot, 1.5 mp to do a 5x7, 3.2 mp to do an 8x10, 6.2 mp to do an 11x14. The highest res digicams available today for under US$1,000, are ~3 mp. Best 3 mp models currently include the Canon PowerShot S20, Nikon CoolPix 990. The 2 mp models of these cameras are the S10 and Coolpix 950. They are all great cameras, and 2 mp models just dropped in price with the introduction of the 3 mp models. For reviews, visit:
http://www.imaging-resource.com http://www.lonestardigital.com http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras.ht ml Note that you can get good deals buying 2nd hand cameras. A lot of users sell their 1-yr-old cameras to buy the latest models. Also, you should buy a camera that's small. If it's too big to carry around, it won't get used. (The Canons are small, sturdy, and they look cool. Kodaks generally suck in this regard.) So why didn't I buy a digicam? I wanted to print really big pictures, and for that you still can't beat film. Film is cheap, and you can scan onto PhotoCD whatever individual frames you like. You get a 6 mp (!) image which you can print onto 11 x 17 paper.
http://photo.net/photo/point-and-shoot.ht ml http://photo.net/photo/point-and-sho ot-tips.html BTW, for a /.-style photo site, check out:
Edgar |
| Good digital cams at lower price range? (Score:1) by daemonc on Saturday April 22, @11:30AM EST (#199) (User Info) |
| Are there any worth getting in the $200 dollar range? Doesn't have to be great, just usable. All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream. |
| Film Still Rules (Score:2) by the eric conspiracy (rlarson-at-monmouth-dot-com by-the-sea) on Saturday April 22, @11:42AM EST (#203) (User Info) |
| I've messed with a digital camera from time to time, and I must say that they are OK for low resolution work. BUT if you want to blow up that image beyond a 4x6", stick with film. Kodak will scan your film to far higher resolution than that available on any digital camera. In addtion the cost of the camera is far lower, and you have far greater choice in accessories, especailly lenses. If you become a serious amateur the advantages of film become even more important - the process of producing a great photograph is two step - capturing the image on film, and then printing it on paper. Serious photographers have long realized that the expression of art in photography comes not in the process of taking the picture, but during the process of turning the image on the negative to an unforgetable print. This .sig no verb. |
| Some things to know about Kodak cameras (Score:1) by John Jorsett on Saturday April 22, @11:48AM EST (#208) (User Info) |
| My biggest gripe with the Kodak cameras (I have a DC260, but hear the same gripe about the 290) is the delay between pushing the button and the actual picture taking. It's on the order of a half second and takes getting used to. People who are using the camera for the first time invariably move it before the picture is captured. It also drains the batteries quickly if the LCD screen is used. It would also be nice if it had a macro capability for close up shots. That said, I haven't found a camera I like better. I particularly like the fact that it has a USB connector; it makes getting the pics out of the camera easy. |
| Kodak DC290 for $560 AFTER shipping & tax (Score:1) by Voivod on Saturday April 22, @11:48AM EST (#209) (User Info) |
I recently bought a DC290 and it's been amazing to use. It can take TIFFs and timelapse photos. Its exposure settings let you take pics in near darkness. The built-in scripting language is kick ass - someone even wrote a script which lets you use the focus-laser as a rangefinder. When I view the pics it takes I'm reminded of the scene in Bladerunner when he spends an hour zooming in and out of tiny details in a picture. To download pictures you just plug it in via USB and it appears as an additional HD on your Windows PC. I've heard that you can access it using Unix freeware as well. Also, the first thing everyone says when they see it is, "Wow, it's much smaller than it looked in the ad!" I scored mine for $560, AFTER tax and shipping. Here's how:
|
| Digital Camera Reviews (Score:1) by cmdrg on Saturday April 22, @12:07PM EST (#218) (User Info) |
The best, recent review of high resolution digital cameras that I've seen was in a recent edition of Popular Science. It has pictures, resolutions, prices, and features for each camera. You can access it here: http://www.popsci.com /electronics/features/cameras/index.html This article covers most of the new megapixel cameras from Olympus, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, etc... The article also briefly discusses things like Film vs Digital and the reasons for poor quality in earlier cameras. It also has some cool side articles on the Sony Mavica and the different adapters for Smartmedia and CompactFlash. There's also a review on a digital adapter that fits inside a 35mm camera. It looks a little pricy, but you'd get the high quality optics of a film camera with the benifits of digital capture. |
| My camera... (Score:2) by Wonko42 (ryan@wonko.com) on Saturday April 22, @12:15PM EST (#221) (User Info) http://wonko.com/ |
| About a month ago, I bought a Ricoh RDC-4300 from Fry's Electronics for about $329. The camera came with everything and the kitchen sink. In the box was a 4 meg memory card, a frigging instructional video, a really nice custom-made padded cloth carrying case, four top-o-the-line NiCad rechargeable memory-less batteries plus charger, AC adaptor and computer parallel port connector, multimedia cables for hooking up to a TV or VCR, and a TON of free software (such as Kai's Power Show, MetaCreations LogoMotion, Enroute QuickStich 360 [for 360-degree images and QuickTime VR movies], and ArcSoft PhotoStudio). The camera takes very nice pictures, even at the lower resolutions. It has six resolutions...three quality levels at 1280x960, and three levels at 640x480. It has a ton of features, including a zoom lens, telephoto, 180-degree rotating lens, and a ton of options that you can set such as auto or manual focus, white balance, etc. If you want to see some pictures I took with my camera, go here. Those pix were taken on the lowest quality setting at 1280x960. Oh yeah, and the camera also records sound bytes, if you're into that sort of thing. All in all, a very professional, high-quality camera for only $329. I was surprised. -- |
| A Better Site Than Slashdot... (Score:1) by diagnosis (diagnosis@removetospam.yahoo.com) on Saturday April 22, @12:15PM EST (#222) (User Info) http://www.rpi.edu/~lavenj |
| at least as far as digital photography goes is digital photography review They have tons of camera reviews, specs, samples, etc., tho they are tilted a bit towards the high-end side. if that first link doesn't work, try http://photo.askey.net/ |
| Olympus 360-L Linux compatibility? (Score:1) by proxima on Saturday April 22, @12:17PM EST (#224) (User Info) |
| I've been looking very closely at purchasing an Olympus 360-L, and until now hardly considered the possibility of being able to connect it to my primary Linux computer without a standard smartmedia reader. I checked gPhoto's website, and they had compatibility listed for almost every other camara by Olympus, including the predecessor of the 360-L the 340, but 360-L was not listed. I'd just like to know if anyone has tried to connect the Olympus 360-L and how did it go? "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." - Carl Sagan |
| Re:Olympus 360-L Linux compatibility? (Score:1) by revlee on Saturday April 22, @02:19PM EST (#279) (User Info) |
| I use it with the 360-L and it works pretty well. Sometimes the gPhoto will crash while creating thumbnails, but it works fine for saving the photos to a file. |
| A photographer's defense of analog (Score:1) by declan (declan@well.com) on Saturday April 22, @12:18PM EST (#225) (User Info) http://www.mccullagh.org/ |
| Unless they're wire service photogs with already-past deadlines, serious photographers still use analog. I spent last weekend traveling with President Clinton, and there were precious few photographers on the press plane with digital cameras. There are many reasons for this, most of which I covered in a Wired article last December. Eventually digital will catch up, and it is an at-least-theoretically-unnecessary-and-definitely-costly pain to develop and scan in slides and negatives. But digital still isn't there yet. Some examples, from my personal photo site: Images that would be very difficult to replicate in digital: |
| re: digital camera (Score:1) by naivan on Saturday April 22, @12:22PM EST (#227) (User Info) |
| It isn't often that a topic comes up on /. that pertains to my area of expertise so I feel compelled to reply. The digital photography market is incredibly exciting lately. Digital cameras outsold SLRs in 1999, which many people thought wouldn't happen for a while. New models come out every couple of months and the image quality in some models has already surpassed most peoples expectations. Here are a few guidelines that I suggest to people buying their first digital camera. The most important question... Are you planning on printing the images? If so, I don't suggest any camera below 2 megapixels. Most 2MP cameras can print up to 8x10 inches at photographic quality. These are the ones that can replace your point and shoot camera. If you aren't planning on printing the images, a 1.3MP camera will fit your needs and will look awesome on your 72dpi monitor. What brand should you purchase? I really don't like the Sony cameras because they take Sony's proprietary technology, the memory stick. (remember consumer level betamax?) The true standards for digital camera memory are the Compactflash card and the Smartmedia card. Smartmedia is the same memory type that most of the new portable MP3 players use. Olympus has some of the most advanced cameras available. The C2500L is an SLR (single lens reflex) which means that you are actually looking through the lens. Point and shoot style cameras can't compare since they use focusing zones rather than a continuous focus range. The C2500L also has some of the best glass ever used in it's lens. The lens on the C2500L has 100 lines of resolution even on the edges (Read as EXTREMELY SHARP). The Photographic Marketing Association voted the C2500L as digital camera of the year for 1999. Olympus also has point and shoot style cameras ranging from about $300 on up. Their C3030 is the current hot item with 3.3MP chip and video with sound capability. If you just want to e-mail some images to your family or post on auction sites, the D360L is probably a good choice for you. Nikon just came out with their Coolpix 990 which has 3.3MP and uses the Nikon Matrix Metering system (probably the most advanced metering system in the world) Since the 990 came out, you can pick up their 2.1MP Coolpix 950 for around $700. Both of these Nikon models work with their professional flash system so if you want to control your lighting, these are good choices. Canon's cameras, the S10 and S20, both take the IBM microdrives so they can have up to 340MB of memory. This is great if you plan on travelling with your camera and don't want to upload your images at the end of each day. So my answer to, "what is the best digital camera?" is... There is no best digital camera. Only what is best for your needs and budget. I personally own the Olympus C2500L. My reasoning is that I want it to be my primary camera and it's probably the best thing available for under $4000. There are so many more issues to discuss, but I think this is a good start. Hope this has been helpful! |
| Choose a Film Camera Maker (Score:1) by sbraab on Saturday April 22, @12:24PM EST (#229) (User Info) |
| Your best bet is going to be to choose a camera from a company who started in film. The often understand how important optics are. PC makers just pack features in and who cares about color accuracy or image clarity. I own a Canon A50Zoom and LOVE IT. I have worked extensivly with both Olympus (GREAT) and Casio (Awful) cameras in the past and would choose a Cannon again. BTW: If you are looking for a good printer check out the HP PhotoSmart P1000. It prints images nice enough to frame and is far more film like than a color laser. It also has a compact flash AND smartmedia slot which it can print directly from or can be used to download the images to you pc. |
| Ricoh RDC-5300 (Score:1) by Atilla (atilla@NOgalstar.comSPAM) on Saturday April 22, @12:28PM EST (#231) (User Info) |
| Recently acuired a Ricoh RDC-5300.... The picture quality is superb, there is no RGB "noise" like on a lot of cameras, it does not compress the pictures too much so they look very clear. It is very light-sensitive and can produce bright pictures with barely any light (works like an analog, basically by keeping the shutter open longer). Does not need TWAIN drivers - the built-in memory and the SmartMedia slots act like filesystems connected via USB. Kodak DC-290 is also a great camera, but much more expensive... --- E Pluribus Unix |
| Fuji, SmartMedia, recommendations... (Score:2) by jetson123 (br_9801 at hotmail dot com) on Saturday April 22, @12:36PM EST (#235) (User Info) |
| I have used quite a number of digicams, including the Olympus D600L, Olympus C2000Z, the Nikon 950, several of the Fujis (MX2700 most recently), the Sony DSC-F505, and some of the older Kodaks. I like SmartMedia much better than either CompactFlash or the Sony memory sticks. CF uses pins (which can bend easily) and is bulky. SmartMedia actually gives you more storage density, even if the individual chips hold a little less data. Sony's MemoryStick is not widely supported by third party manufacturers; what Sony gives you in terms of accessories is it, and if it doesn't work right (like their PCMCIA interface), you are stuck. Sony also can't decide on a form factor: there are three MemoryStick variants coming out, not all compatible. I like the Olympus and Fuji cameras a lot. The Fujis are high quality, robust, and work very reliable. The Olympus cameras are somewhat quirkier but usually have more features. Both the Olympus C2000Z and the Nikon 950 (and later models apparently too) have some (to me) objectionable color artifacts. The Fuji MX2700 doesn't, but it doesn't have zoom. I don't particularly like the Kodaks: they are a bit bulky IMO. The Sony DSC-F505 has great quality, a great and versatile lens, and an nice form factor, but the LCD becomes unusable outdoors (and it uses the MemoryStick). Watch out for fake resolution statements. Just like scanners, several manufacturers now overstate resolution because they perform software interpolation. The most notable offenders are Agfa (almost none of their cameras have the resolution they claim), and Fuji's latest MX4700 (which is a 2.2Mpixel camera, not a 4.7Mpixel camera). Incidentally, a 2 megapixel camera really has only 2 million sensors, not 6 million, as you might think since it takes RGB pictures; the color information is interpolated. So, all the resolution claims are somewhat overblown, but they are comparably overblown. And the color interpolation is actually fairly harmless because of the way human color vision works--the greyscale resolution is pretty close to what they claim, it's just that the color information is a bit spread out (but you won't notice). And at least this is consistent among all cameras. Altogether, I end up using the Fuji MX2700 most. It is small enough to carry everywhere, it's not too expensive, and it produces great pictures. It also has good battery lifetime (also very important). |
| Olympus C-2500L! (Score:1) by Daniel Rutter on Saturday April 22, @12:48PM EST (#240) (User Info) |
| After I wrote the (lengthy) comparison here, I bought a C-2500L. It's a proper TTL SLR (none of yer rangefinder viewfinder rubbish), it's got an excellent built-in flash and a hotshoe, it takes both kinds of popular memory card, image quality is superb, its macro mode is useful (though not as good as the Nikon Coolpix 950) and it's also got good battery life and a remote control. You're still talking $US1300 for it, though, and it's got no USB or SCSI data transfer (serial only), so you'll need a Flash/SmartMedia card reader as well. That review, again :-), is here. |
| Sony Mavica (Score:2) by SoftwareJanitor (SoftwareJanitor@yahoo.com) on Saturday April 22, @12:50PM EST (#243) (User Info) |
| I've had a Sony Mavica FD7 for a couple of years, and it has performed quite well for me. The Mavicas are expensive, a little on the large side and the floppy disk isn't super speedy, but there are a couple of things they beat all the other digital cameras I've looked at for... One thing is that the FD7, FD71, and FD73 have hands down the best zoom I've seen. 10x, and extremely smooth in and out -- a lot of other cameras I've looked at only have 2-3x zoom, and there is only like three levels. The Mavicas come with a rechargeable camcorder style battery, which beats using AA or AAA batteries like a lot of other cameras use -- I typically get several hours of use on a charge and I haven't had to replace the battery yet in a couple of years of service. The Mavicas also have a really great LCD display on them. But hands down, the big thing that sold me on the Mavica was the convenience, cheapness and ubiquitousness of the floppy for storage. I can buy floppies 24 hours a day even out in podunk center nowhere, because Wal-Mart carries floppies. I can buy a couple of boxes of floppies for what one smart media or memory stick costs. And I can slap a floppy into any computer anywhere I go and read the jpg's off it -- no having to install special download software or futz around with hooking up cables. And it doesn't matter if its a PC running Linux, PC running Windoze (blech), Mac, SparcStation, whatever. Just about everything can read a 1.4M floppy and deal with jpg's. What I really want is the Mavica FD88. It has higher resolution (1280x960 if memory serves), faster floppy (4x) and 8x optical 8x digital zoom. All in all, I wholeheartedly recommend the Mavica line. |
| Film camera plus scanning still the way to go (Score:1) by btempleton (bt@templetons.com) on Saturday April 22, @12:53PM EST (#245) (User Info) http://www.templetons.com/brad/ |
| If you're serious, this is still the way to go. Digital cameras get better every few months, just like computers. Unlike computers, the argument that "If you keep waiting for the better product, you will never buy anything" doesn't wash here because there is an existing product - film - which is already better in most respects. The right course is to shoot on film and scan until the digicam comes out that meets your needs. The cost of your film and scanning will possibly be less than the depreciation on your digital camera while you wait for the one with the resolution you want. A good 35mm frame has as many as 20 million 42 bit pixels. The best digicams have 3 million 8 bit pixels. A $90 Olympus Stylus Epic will shoot pictures far beyond any Digicam. You can get develop and scan for $8.50 a roll of 36 at dalelabs.com, for example. Of course you don't get the instant feedback. And instant feedback is worth a lot. But is it worth giving up resolution? Only you can decide. But don't think just because you don't need the resolution today that you don't need it. Never throw away information. If you shoot that one precious photo on digital, you won't be able to go back in time and get it again in high res. You will be able to do that if you shoot on film. Today our monitors are only 1600x200. Tomorrow we will look at that as clunky -- this is always the way. The digicams of just 2 years ago now look clunky to us. How many rolls will you shoot a year? If it's less than 50, then $500 on 3000x2000 scanning will be about the same as the depreciation on a top of the line digicam today. Don't get me wrong, I will go to digicams soon, when they get to more than 8 bits/pixel and around 2500 pixels wide. It's not far away. But they are changing to fast to pick them quite yet if you are serious about your pictures. Serious photogrpahers shoot a lot of shots to get that one great shot. When they get that great shot, they want it in as much resolution as possible. If you can afford it even if you shoot 100 rolls/year, the only way to get that great shot in hi res is on film. |
| The only Semi-Professional quality digital Camera (Score:1) by Last Warrior (s_t_e_v_e_a_c@nospam_h_o_t_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m) on Saturday April 22, @12:54PM EST (#246) (User Info) |
| I have been doing research on the digital cameras on the market for some time. All of the camera seem to have one major fault in my eyes. Each and every camera stores images in jpeg. Jpeg is very space efficient, but is a lossy compression scheme which is unuseable to a professional photographer. Except for one. * SHQ-JPEG with low 1:2.3 compression 1712 X 1368 pixel images—for true photo quality images * HQ-JPEG with low 1:8 compression 1712 X 1368 pixel images—ideal for high quality photo printing * SQ-JPEG SVGA 1280 X 1024 pixel images—photo-realistic 8 X 10 inch prints from a photo-quality printer or high quality email photos * SQ-JPEG VGA 640 X 512 pixel images—perfect for Internet use or to email friends and family. The camera carries a weighty pricetag but for my purposes, there is no alternative. This camera sells for between $1300-$1500US. I often do photo editing/manipulations and uncompressed is the only way to go. LW |
| What I ended up getting... (Score:1) by Keeper on Saturday April 22, @01:03PM EST (#250) (User Info) |
| I actually went through this process about a week ago. I eventually decided on getting a Nikon Coolpix 800. I also bought a 32mb compact flash card, usb cf reader, and a set of 4 NiMH rechargable batteries to go with it. Total cost: $600 (Camera: $425 -- 32mb CF: $75 -- Batteries: $33 -- CF Reader: $30). The camera came with an 8mb card. That's enough to take about 24 pictures at normal quality. The 32mb card usually ends up taking between 60-80 pictures at that setting; the normal quality setting is more than adequite for good pictures. In the lowest res/quality mode, an excess of 300 pictures can be taken. I don't think it'd be practicle to take a digital camera on a 2 week vacation yet unless you have a number of compact flash cards to bring with you. But for a one or two day event, or for a holiday gathering it should be more than adequate. For just playing around with cameras, it's great. I've already taken over 700 pictures with mine in under a week; the thing has practically payed for itself when you think about how much money I would have spent on film/developing -- just so I could play with an idea or something. Note on quality settings: the camera has a number of different quality settings. You have the normal mode which takes pictures at 1600x1200. In this mode you can save the pics as an uncompressed tiff (~5.5mb), has a high quality jpeg (~800k), as a normal quality jpeg (~400k), and as a low quality jpeg (~200k). You can also tell the camera to save the pictures at a resolution of 640x480 at the high, normal, and low quality settings (no tiff option). Features: Has a 2x optical zoom. Takes pictures at a res of 1600x1200 (and it's SHARP too). You can screw on filters/attatchments to the lense. The LCD screen has several different modes to suit your "style" (ie: always on and focusing, always on, only show the picture you just took, never on). The thing has shudder speeds between 1/750s to 8s. It has 3 different metering options (all which are very useful). You can manually adjust the focus (has about 50 different steps). You can also adjust the exposure slightly. End result: I love it. The camera's featureset sits on the border between an amateur camera and a profesional one. You can set it to automatic or set many of the features yourself. It takes AWESOME mixed light pictures, and the CCD doesn't bleed out (ie: you don't see a farking verticle line in the picture like you with with a cheap digital camera) if you point it at a bright object. |
| I've had good luck with the Sony PCR-100 (Score:1) by mcoyote on Saturday April 22, @01:04PM EST (#251) (User Info) |
| The Sony PCR-100 is both a digital video cassette camera (both full motion and still pictures on cassette) and can also use Sony's memory sticks for still images storage. Unlike most DV-style combos, this one's still resolution is quite respectable (1152xSomething), and it has both a very good optical/mechanical stabilization system, a 10x optical/120x interpolated zoom, active NIR, zero-light shooting, and a great, bright little LCD and viewfinder. Plus, the PC-card adapter for the memory sticks, usable across the Sony line, makes the stick appear just like a removable IDE drive and works under Linux and Win2k (at least) with no extra driver software. Almost as convenient as floppies, in other words, but uses a lot less power and holds a whole pile more of images. At full-sized, superfine quality the jpg's are 610kb. The current price point on memory sticks (which are *very* small, convenient, and solid-state) are ~$50 for a 32MB model (55 images at that resolution/quality, several hundred at 640x480 and lower quality). The PCR-100 also has a very complete remote control, serial, composite, and firewire (DVLink) I/O, and it fits in the palm of yer hand. Can be found around the web for ~$1,600. The full-motion video is very good for a single-CCD camera, btw, but you didn't ask about that :) |
| Digital Cameras Look Hollow and Cold. (Score:1) by searleb (elwin@cyberspace.org) on Saturday April 22, @01:07PM EST (#254) (User Info) http://members.xoom.com/dust_to_dust/ |
| Although most the audio world has gone to CD players and digital amplifiers, those who do serious work with audio still use turntables and analog amplifiers. Sound is warmer. We've grown so accustomed to the little imperfections that digital equipment sounds hollow and cold. I would never trade my 1978 Harman/Kardon for the digital surround sound mumbo jumbo. Although I have two CD players, my turntable gets at least as much work. I also am into amateur photography, and have been ever since school. Beyond the drastic difference in photo quality, there's something nice about the irregularities of a camera. The lines are crisp and straight. Where there are grains, the grains are irregular, giving a warmer, more natural image. Along a similar note, I just recently purchased a new Macintosh Powerbook with, of course, an LCD screen. Although my LCD screen is almost as large as my tube monitor for my old Macintosh and the screen resolution is much higher, the picture quality on the tube monitor is far superior. Everything is cleaner. Another note: Creating an accurate polarization with Photoshop was as simple as selecting a menu option and just as boring, but to see a really nice polarization in a print is just so much more special. Every once in a while I still get out the pinhole camera I built in school because you can do things with it that you could never consider doing with a point and click camera, let alone a digital one. There's something impressive in knowing exactly what is happening in a photo, and knowing that you are doing it actively. |
| What good is it if it's just a camera? (Score:1) by Gridle (tevqyr@zoarg.sv (ROT13)) on Saturday April 22, @01:15PM EST (#260) (User Info) http://www.mame.net/ |
| The only reasonable choice is a camera based on the Digita OS, so that you can have some fun and run MAMED and MESSD on it. So, good ones for that purpose are Kodak DC265 and DC290. |
| Things I hate about my Olympus (Score:2) by Randy Rathbun (rathbun@spamcop.net) on Saturday April 22, @01:15PM EST (#261) (User Info) http://rrr.dhs.org |
| First, I love my camera. It is an Olympus D600-L. I got the 16 meg SmartMedia upgrade last year, and this past year they came out with a 32 meg upgrade for it. One of these days I will actually send the camera in. One thing I learned from owning a digi-cam is this: don't go off and buy a camera because of it's price. Buy it because of the features it has. And when you decide on a camera, look at it closely. Much like any other piece of hardware you buy, there is something better around the corner. I don't mind the resolution. It does 640x480 very well, and does even better at 1280x960. The shots are beautiful, and do not give that CCD White like you normally see (that is, it does not look like a video image you get when you shoot something white in a high brightness setting.) I also like the fact that the camera is a real honest to goodness SLR. Viewfinders suck. But, the things I hate are not being able to control the exposure, the shutter speed, and not being able to remove the lens. At first I did not think that would be a really big deal. Now I do. I am nowhere near a pro photographer, but I do have applications for the camera that would make it even more useful to me if it had those things. Granted, if I spent $12K I could get one of those nifty Kodak cameras, or a Mamayia with a digital back on it, but well, $12K is a bit too steep. It would still be awesome to have though. I have CONSIDERABLY more bandwidth than YOU! |
| Sony DSC-F55 (Score:1) by lasher (lasher at confusion of the internet) on Saturday April 22, @01:16PM EST (#262) (User Info) http://fnord.penguinpowered.com |
| I recently bought a Sony DSC-F55. I was absolutely stoked about the purchase when it was happening. I've done alot of amature work with 35mm and medium format, and I liked the specs on this camera. Rotating Zeiss lens, 2x zoom 2.1 MP, ability to store MPEG movies, effects (black & white, sepitome, solarize, and negative). When I got the camera home, I immediately filled up a 64 meg flash card. Held something like 120+ images at 1600x1200. Then came the process of getting the pictures to the system. The only option is serial, and if you are in windows, a proprietary software. No drivers for making it a TWAIN source either. Sony's support system is like that apparently. In linux, conveniently, there was Gphoto, and it was handy, but took about 8-10 hours to download 50 pictures. That was unacceptable. To end the story, I like the camera, but if I want to take some pictures with it, I have to set aside a weekend to download them. |
| Canon S10 (Score:1) by chocky on Saturday April 22, @01:35PM EST (#266) (User Info) |
| We picked up a Canon S10 just before Christmas and I'd recommend it highly. I've been frankly astonished by the quality of the images, having worked with several other digital cameras over the past couple of years. Printing on an Epson 740 on glossy paper is as good or better than photos you get from a regular photo-finishing place. True, it doesn't have interchangeable lenses and stuff but it's small enough to put in your shirt pocket! Here's a good review. |
| Check out rec.photo.digital (Score:1) by Chirs (chirs@bigfoot.com) on Saturday April 22, @01:39PM EST (#269) (User Info) |
| Check out the bajillion discussions on just this topic by looking it up on deja.com in rec.photo.digital. This gets hashed out every few weeks on that group. The FAQ can be found at www.crosswinds.net/~rpdfaq |
| USB Flash Card Readers (Score:1) by Woil (woil@hotmail.com) on Saturday April 22, @01:59PM EST (#275) (User Info) http://www.qspeed.com/wshaver |
| Whatever camera you buy, get one that uses Compact Flash for storage. Then head over to buy.com or your favorite computer parts store, and purchase yourself an external USB flash card reader. If it's fast enough to stream MP3s off of like my Kingston model is... it's fast enough for everything else. |
| Canon Powershot Pro 70 (Score:1) by x mani x (mani.ghasemlouATsympaticoDOTca) on Saturday April 22, @02:10PM EST (#277) (User Info) http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~mghase |
| This camera is really great. And because of the recent release of the 3 megapixel S20, the Powershot's price has plummeted. The Powershot Pro 70 is a professional camera. It has dual memory card slots (one for CF, and one for CF II, this means you can plug in a 340mb IBM microdrive!!) and no built-in flash -- this means you have to buy a seperate flash unit (but considering how great the low-light capabilities of this camera are, you usually won't need a flash anyway). It also comes with a rechargeable NimH battery, along with a proprietary rechargeable (with recharger!). Of course, it has all the professional features like configurable shutter speed, manual focus, aperture priority, etc. Its resolution, more true to the image ratio of professional non-digital cams, is something like 1536x1024. The lenses on all canon's are incredible, on-par if not better than the Nikon 9xx line of cameras, which are (were?) considered standard-bearers in terms of consumer digital cameras. This particular camera has an infrared light under the lens that does some extremely nice automatic focusing. This camera is also built to look a lot like an SLR camera, with the zoom switch placed on the side of the lens. Another cool feature is that the LCD display flips open from the camera and can be configured to face any direction -- basically just like the displays on newer video cameras (this is IMHO even better than the nikon 9xx "swivel" design). And let me remind you that the price of this incredible "pro-sumer" camera has plummeted. You can probably get it for under $600. Check out the review of this camera, and other high-end consumer/pro-sumer reviews by Phil Askey at photo.askey.net. This dude really knows what's up. I've barely even touched on all the details about this camera so make sure to check it out. And back when he did this review, the only reason the Powershot Pro70 didn't win hands down as one of the best cameras is because it cost about $1200 when it was released! "to forgive and forget, i live and regret" -CaveIn http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~mghase |
| Digital Camera Features (Score:1) by sig (sig@eatmyspam.netdot.net) on Saturday April 22, @02:25PM EST (#281) (User Info) http://www.netdot.net/~sig |
| I've had 4 digital cameras over the years, as well as several SLR film cameras. Two of my DCs have been Kodaks and the other two Epsons. The one I use now is an Epson PhotoPC 850Z. Its a nice camera, with a lot of bells and whistles, some of which are really usefull, and some of which look good on the box. In comparison to my other three cameras, I would have to say that one of the most important features is an optical zoom. Don't settle for just a digital zoom. You will be disapointed with the results. I got so frustrated with the digital zoom on my old Epson (PhotoPC 600) that I just had to quit using it all together. It only works in lo res mode, and the shots look terrible. With my new 850Z, though, you can shoot 1600x1200, and still get up close and personal. |
| Agfa ePhoto CL50 (Score:1) by spullara (spullara@yahoo.com) on Saturday April 22, @02:29PM EST (#283) (User Info) http://www.sampullara.com |
| I have been using this camera now for about 2 years and I am extremely satisfied with it. It has excellent default resolution (1280 x 960) and a synthetic 1600x1200 mode. It also has all the things you would expect in a normal camera, like 3x zoom, macro mode, red-eye reduction flash, black&white mode, and a familiar form factor. I suggest that you also get a 32M card to get 100 pictures at the default resolution and a USB card reader to pull the pictures off the camera quickly. As long as you don't use the LCD monitor your battery life will be extremely long as well. Along that front I suggest you invest in NiMH rechargable batteries. They work great in this camera and are a lot cheaper than using disposable batteries. If I can see farther it is because I am surrounded by dwarves. |
| Fujifilm MX-2700 (Score:1) by robson (robson@fiction.pair.com.suffix) on Saturday April 22, @02:46PM EST (#289) (User Info) http://fiction.pair.com |
| Pros: *Very, very small - I carry it around in my pants pocket. *High-resolution - max 1800x1200. *Decent price - I got mine on the net for $550. Cons: *Only stores pics internally as JPEGs. This means that, even at highest quality, you still get a few compression artifacts. *No built-in USB. USB transfer package costs extra. *No optical zoom - no room for a zoom lens on this tiny thing. I was torn between the Sony Cyberblahblah and the MX-2700. The Sony picture quality was higher, but the small form factor, convenience, and lower price of the 2700 won me over. I've been very happy with it. erik |
| Digital vs Film (Score:1) by hrieke on Saturday April 22, @02:52PM EST (#293) (User Info) |
| As a camera geek as well as a computer geek, I can say that I rather have film over most ditigal solutions at this point. The only digial solution that I have even considered is a digital back for my Mamiya 645, which would shoot 128mb images right to a 10gig HD. This setup would / could easily cost more than my car. It's image resolution, and film as someone else put it, near 1000 LPI, which on a 35mm (3.5cm / 2.54 = 1.377 inches) offers 1377 lines of image resolution. The best 35mm solution is the Nikon N90 with Kodak's digital back which costs nearly $18,000 new. I have yet to see one of these machines listed used. Stick with either Kodak's Royal Gold 100 & 400, or Fuji's 100 & 400, play with Kodak's CM-41 for BW photography (very nice, & have the red lens filter for outdoors!) and you will rarely go wrong. Use photo.net to learn, and shop at B&H Photo for your equipment. |
| Mavica (Score:2, Informative) by CAIMLAS (caimlas@cats.wpe.com) on Saturday April 22, @03:13PM EST (#298) (User Info) http://www.chienworks.com/~caimlas |
| I'm not much of a "professinal" photographer, but I like photography a lot, and like experimenting. For me, everything ends up digital anyway, and that's how it's all distributed. Film isn't an option for me, really, due to the price of film and its development. For what I do - taking pictures, editing them, and putting them on the web, digital is good enough quality. (for published stuff tho, I'd probably only use "film" cameras. not taht any of my stuff would ever get published) I currently don't have a digital camera, but I've fallen in love with Sony's Mavica line. They produce fairly high quality images, have the ability to take mpeg movies, and have very inexpensive storage - floppies. That makes for great transport and cross-platformability. (if that's a word) Well, that's quite enough nonsense for now. ------- |
| A few suggestions (Score:3, Informative) by JeremyR (jlr4@cornell.dont-spam-me.edu) on Saturday April 22, @03:23PM EST (#301) (User Info) http://www.frii.net/~jeremy/ |
| Without delving into the merits of digital vs. 35mm photography, I recognize that there are benefits to both. I'm by no means a professional photographer, so for a lot of situations, the benefits to digital are starting to outweigh the disadvantages. There are a lot of great cameras out there now, even for under $1000, that are likely to well serve the needs of non-professionals (and, in some cases, professionals as well). After doing a fair amount of research (reading every review I could find on certain models of cameras) and changing my mind several times about which one would best suit my needs, I've decided on a Sony CyberShot DSC-D770. I selected this camera because the 35mm I use most often is an SLR, and after much deliberation I decided to stick with the SLR style. The Sony's resolution (1.5 megapixel) is a bit on the low side by today's standards, but that's the only real shortcoming of this camera. Still, I think 1344x1024 output will be sufficient for my purposes. What I particularly liked about this camera is the wealth of manual controls, especially the zoom and focusing rings. Other cameras (less than $1000 street price) worth considering:
Regards, (And if anyone's interested in how that Sony works out, I'll be receiving the camera this week. I'll be happy to share my own impressions of it once I've had a chance to play with it.) |
| my recommendations: 2 Megapixel or higher (Score:2, Informative) by islack on Saturday April 22, @03:45PM EST (#305) (User Info) |
| I recommend the Olympus C2020. I got one and I found that the picture quality is quite good. I got this one after starting on an Agfa C50 (I think that was the model). I have compared this one to the Agfa, the Olympus D450, and another smaller digital camera (was a friend's, can't recall the model). The picture quality of the Olympus C2020 is better than the others I have tested and Battery life is decent (compared to other cameras). I definately recommend the C2020 for any web photography. With the resolution available on the C2020, you will need to use GIMP or Photoshop to reduce the image sizes but I have found that the clarity is excellent and even reducing the image size down, there is little loss of quality (for the web). The main reason you want to go for a higher quality/higher resolution image is that if you need to take a picture of something small, this is quite helpful as you can get in close for a detailed shot. For example, taking pictures of custom action figures (which are about 4 inches tall), this is useful if you want to be able to clearly show detail. Printing pictures out, you definately need the higher quality images as they will be much clearer and much nicer. The lower end cameras are fine for things like group photos at a party or something else where you will want to share the pictures with your friends via the web but as far as printability goes, definately go 2 Megapixel or higher. Otherwise, you are left printing out small 2x3 images just to sharpen up the images. If you are really interested in getting a digital camera, I recommend looking at a few digitial photography magazines and/or websites. Last I read, the C2000 (which the C2020 was based off of) was rated number one or two in picture quality in it's class (price/feature range). Sorry I don't have the URL's for any of the mag websites or other digital photography websites. I also recommend a smartmedia reader or compact flash reader of some sort as these speed up your download time immensely. Downloads over a serial comnnection take forever. And, if you are using a digital camera that uses AA batteries, definately get rechargables. I actually recommend an extra set or two if you get extra media as batter life on digital cameras leaves a whole lot to be desired. You are usually fine for the memory you got (unless you got an IBM Microdrive), but if you are planning on getting 2 or 3 extra smartmedia/compact flash cards, you definately wanna consider an extra set of NiMH batteries. Hope this helps! |
| Digital still cam... (Score:1) by Mighty Mik on Saturday April 22, @04:09PM EST (#310) (User Info) |
| in Fry's ad today... Olympus D-600L refurbished for $397. this is a 1.4 Meg pixel w/1280 x 1024 res, 4 Meg media card 1.8" LCD and aspherical GLASS lens. this cam WAS like $999 not too long ago...i'd check it out. "Remember, your best buys always get Fried, guarenteed"...heheheh |
| Good old film (Score:1) by the phantom (al@persephone.delete_this.pomona.edu) on Saturday April 22, @04:46PM EST (#320) (User Info) http://persephone.pomona.edu |
| This is in no way meant to be flamebait, but is a serious question: If you are really interested in photography, why would you want to buy a digital camera? What advantages do digital cameras have over conventional cameras (aside from the cost of developing film -- though I'm not sure that even that is so great, i.e. a printer, paper, ink, computer, etc. might not outweigh the cost of a good camera and film -- depends on the printer, I suppose). At any rate, I have been into photography since I was rather young. All my life I have used my mother's camera (which she finally gave to me before I went to college). It is an old Minolta X-370. I have many lenses, including a fish eye, a telephoto, some magnifying lenses and a couple of 50-70 mm lenses. I feel that with the Minolta, I have the ability to control thousands of variables, like apature size, exposure time, and which lens I use. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have never seen a digital camera that allows you to change lenses. Also (and this may just be my anti-technology streak shining through), I think that photographs taken with a conventional camera, printed on photo paper in the way they should be just look better. No blurred ink, no weird colors, just the photo as it should be. Granted, if all you want to do is take snap shots on vacation, it really does not matter what kind of camera you use, but if you are really into taking good picture, I think you should invest in a good camera and a couple of lenses and fork over the dengi to develop the film. Just my two cents, and feel free to flame me into oblivion. ----- Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu; Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit; Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu, I zvezda s zbezduyu govorit. |
| Re:Good old film (Score:1) by jgennick (jonathan@gennick.com) on Saturday April 22, @11:18PM EST (#382) (User Info) http://gennick.com |
| >If you are really interested in photography, why would you want to buy a digital camera? What Convenience. The "instant gratification" factor. I can get photos for my web site faster with a digital camera. My kids and their friends like it when I occasionally photograph them and then print up the results for them to take home. I agree though, that there are plenty of advantages to a good 35mm setup. My old SLR is much more flexible in terms of available lenses and control over exposure than my digital camera is, and I don't doubt that the 35mm will take higher quality pictures too. Jonathan |
| Olympus 450 Zoom (Score:1) by no1spam (no1spam@attglobal.net-yes, this IS it.) on Saturday April 22, @05:25PM EST (#328) (User Info) |
| I recently picked up the Olympus 450 ZOOM at Staples, and I love it. Quality of the unit is above average, MUCH better that the Sony (floppy disk) camera that I've used at work. It comes with a proprietary 8 meg Smart Media card, but generic cards work without the "Panorama" feature. I also bought a generic 32 meg Smart Card and a generic PCMCIA adapter. A bonus is that I can use the Smart Media card for my Rio MP3 player. I can also stick the adapter into any computer with a PCMICA slot and have a quick and easy way to grab files. Windows 95,98, and NT all auto detect the adapter and Smart Media as a standard hard disk drive. I'm not sure if it works with Linux but I know that the cards use standard Windows style FAT, so Linux should be able to see it.... |
| Don't even consider replacing film with digicams (Score:1) by anewsome (anewsome@anewsome.com) on Saturday April 22, @05:36PM EST (#329) (User Info) http://www.mp3smuggler.com |
| Unless your need for pictures is extremely trivial, don't even consider replacing your 35mm camera with even the best of digital cameras. Unless you are talking about a Nikon D1 (around $5,000 US) or better, digital cameras don't even approach the quality of pictures that you get from even the cheapest of 35mm cameras. My portable camera setup consists of a Nikon F4, a and a Sony DSC-770 digital camera. The digital camera was purchased as a compliment to the 35mm system and it was very expensive in relationship to the quality of images it is able to produce. I paid nearly $1800 for this camera the same week it was introduced and I am not at all happy with the results. There is something that all consumer grade digital cameras suffer from and there is no escaping it. It is called interpolation. And it will decrease the sharpness of your images noticeably, even to the naked eye on everyday pictures. Interpolation occurs because each pixel in the CCD array can only be a receptor for RED, GREEN, or BLUE. So when the camera takes a reading of a pixel, say a RED one, it has to guess from surounding GREEN and BLUE sensors what the GREEN and BLUE values for the pixel area covered bye this RED pixel would be. This behavoir decreases your image quality considerably, which is precisely why digicams (consumer grade) are woefully inadequate for all but the most trivial of uses. Then there is the issue of print quality. Do you plan on using these images in print or just on the web. Most people I know that take pictures actually like to see prints of them. Ok, so lets do a little math. We'll compare my Sony DSC-770 at around $1,800 to a cheaper setup, my old Canon A1 which I paid $300 for the entire setup and my trusty Canon FS2710 film scanner at around $800 (or that's what I paid, they are probably much cheaper now). Ok, we're still talking about making some prints. My Sony spits out uncompressed TIFF images at 1344x1024, 3.94MB which sounds huge if you're talking about web graphics, but not so huge if you're talking about making prints. My Canon scanner spits out images that are 3764x2509, 27MB at 2720dpi for a 35mm negative. Ok some quick math, ... what print quality is considered good? you've just picked up a cheapo Epson stylus to print out your images, and you want them to be sharp. Let's see,.. the Epson does 1440x700 or something like that. A quick glance at the 1440 number tells you that the Sony camera image would print out to be about an inch wide at full resolution. That's not a print, that's a stamp. Ok, something more reasonable, say 600 dpi, or maybe 300 dpi. Well at 600 dpi the Sony camera will print out an image at 2.2x1.7 inches. The Canon 35mm will print out at 6.2x4.1 inches. 4x6 is generally the smallest print that is considered reasonable. At 300 dpi (which is still a decent resolution), the Sony image will be 4.4x3.4 inches. Not even the size of a standard print. The Canon setup however will print out at a full 12x8 inches. Enough for a decent enlargement. So once again, unless you're taking snapshots of things that aren't really to important to you, don't waste your time trying to replace your 35mm with a digital camera. If you do decide that you just gotta have a digital, then get the best one you can afford because the feature set on the low-end is strictly for point and shoot enthusiasts. Oh yeah, and be leary of the usefulness of any feature that is not directly related to increasing image quality,... most of the digicams out there nowadays are loaded with useless bells and whistles that do nothing but complicate the camera. And one more thing, if you do get a digicam, .. the service offered by Ofoto.com is outstanding. The 100 free digital prints are worth signing up for alone. I don't work for them but I use them alot, and have grown to love it. My two cents, Aaron Newsome. |
| Meta-questions (Score:1) by rsborg on Saturday April 22, @06:19PM EST (#335) (User Info) |
| First off: Digital cameras *are not* replacements for a good 'ol film based. With that out of the way, it looks like the question really should be: Based on my requirements below, should I get a digital camera, and which one should I get? * Price/Affordability (digitals are expensive) * Image quality (1.3 megapixels != photo quality) * Optical zoom (lens features) * image development time (digital = immediate response, assuming some serial/usb connection) * digital print? (will this go on the web or a meatspace binder somewhere?) I bought an olympus 320D before going to europe (15 min before going to the airport) just so I could send my pics over the internet within a day of taking them. It served my purposes well, but I lost a lot of good photo opportunities to the fact that the light processing in the digital just can't be hacked like film (exposure time, aperature width, etc). My dig is great for taking pics of ppl, and parties, etc. Not for scenery or anything requiring zoom (320D does not have optical zoom). If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions -Jules Winfield |
| Well, here's what I've got (and why) (Score:2) by Kris_J (news1@krisjohn.net) on Saturday April 22, @06:28PM EST (#336) (User Info) http://www.krisjohn.net |
I have 3 (sorta) digital cameras, plus 2 at work (and two more owned privately by staff at work)
[I hereby grant full permission for any and all to retransmit, archive, republish and broadcast all of my postings to Slashdot, past, present and future] |
| Digital Camera Advice (Score:2, Informative) by Ezzelin (ezzelin@softhome.net?subject=slashdot) on Saturday April 22, @07:29PM EST (#347) (User Info) |
| First, make sure to look at sample images of whatever camera you buy. The best site that I've found for this is Imaging Resource. It has tons of sample images at full resolution and compressions quality, as well as very detailed reviews of nearly every camera out there. They also update their news section frequently, usually more then once a day. As far as my experiences have gone, Nikon makes great digital cameras with lots of useful features. My Coolpix 950 has served me very well. For instance, one unique feature it sports is one where it will take a number of shots in a row and automatically select the sharpest and only save that one! Very nice in low light. Kodak also makes nice cameras. My first camera was a one-megapixel Kodak DC200. I took to school every day and ended up with over 3,600 pictures by the time I got my new Nikon! Kodak generally has very good lenses with accurate color balance. Be sure to get at least 2 megapixels. By now you can get 3 if you really want to shell out the money. Of course, when you get into the professional models, the sky's the limit. I've seen an in creadible 6 megapixel that Kodak makes for thousands of dollers. At this point, digitals can really replace film cameras, since often these cameras are traditional film cameras with the film area replaced with digital circuitry; professionals can therefore use their lenses. Be careful about interpolation; some companies will try to pass off their cameras as a higher res then they really are. Fuji and Agfa are two examples with their SuperCCD and PhotoGenie technologies, respectively. While these special techniques might do more then a typical resample, they are still no substitute for a higher CCD. Same applies for "digital zoom". That's marketing speak for resizing or resampling in the camera. Don't expect anything from it. One more thing: be careful what kind of media you are investing in. Some like Sony's Mavica line, but I would rather not carry around a bunch of unreliable floppy disks if I don't have to. Also, Sony's other new camera uses their own Memory Stick format too, which will make me avoid them flat out. I've already invested a lot in CompactFlash, and I don't want to support a proprietary format with no real advantages and a few disadvantages (higher price, lower space, etc.) CompactFlash is, IMHO, the better standard when compared to Smartmedia, as it is generally cheaper and available in higher capacities. There are two types of Compactflash slots; type 1, and type 2. Type 2 slots are really nice; they take IBM Microdrives that hold 340 megs of pictures! By now, Digital Cameras can definately take very good pictures that rivel film based cameras. When they are printed out on a modern color ink-jet priter with photo paper, they make very sharp prints indeed! I would encourage anyone to go to a local computer store and print some sample photos from a store inkjet. Or even better: you can download a jpeg from Imaging Resource and print it out. You WILL be impressed. |
| Kodak: (Linux, USB, and Digital Cameras) (Score:2, Interesting) by HRbnjR (chris@hubick.com) on Saturday April 22, @07:39PM EST (#348) (User Info) http://www.hubick.com/ |
| 1) You want Compact Flash expandability. If your going to take any reasonable amount of pics with your camera...it needs a decent amount of memory. My Kodak DC240 has a 64Mb compact flash card in it...I can take 471 640x480 high quality (low compression) pics with that. Smartmedia will only give you 1/2 and recently 1/4 the expandability of regular compact flash cards. 2) USB!!!! Once you have all those pictures you need to get em into the computer. If you think you are going to transfer 64 megs of pictures over your parrallel port and be happy about it...FORGET IT. I would rather not have to go on another vacation while waiting for the pictures from my last one! :-) You want USB connections from the camera to the PC. Of course your next question is..USB and Linux? Yes...Kodak cameras are one of the FEW which currently have USB which works with the new linux kernel. See here: http://home.pacbell.net/david-b/digicam/ 3) If your printing out your digital pics...your not a geek...go away. Otherwise, you may, like myself, find 640x480 adequate for most pictures being stored and viewed on the computer. This said, almost all cameras will do that resolution...you basically just want quality at that res and the ability to do more. Do yourself a favor...and save some money. The Kodak DC240 was slashed in price a few months ago. It has great 1280x960 resolution if you need it. A great LCD. It's easy to use. I have one and am very happy with it (I traded off my non-usb fuji unit to get it). It has all the memory and features you need and can now be picked up for really cheap. Go for it. |
| fuji mx-1200/olympus 340L/360L (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @08:00PM EST (#357) |
| I had the Olympus 340L, and it was very good, linux and BeOS compatible. For linux just get "gphoto" from freshmeat. But now I have the Fuji-MX1200 which rocks even more. Also linux compatible. Much better options, and menu system. Beside, the fuji mx-1200 looks damn sexy. it set me back $250. |
| Olympus C-2500L a real alternative to film (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, @08:14PM EST (#362) |
| Consider this Camera: I just bought one a few weeks., ago (having owned expensive SLRs as well as a Kodak DC210). The Olympus is 'it' for me:
This is a REAL camera! Michael |
| Comments on Agfa Camera with Clik Disk? (Score:1) by gus2000 on Saturday April 22, @10:10PM EST (#378) (User Info) |
| Does anyone have comments about the Agfa camera that uses Iomega Clik disks for storage? This seems to me to be a very good option, the disks hold 40 MB and cost $10 or less when bought in larger packs, certainly MUCH MUCH less than a flash memory. There also exist PCMCIA drives for the disks, and now just recently a USB docking station for the drives so that you can use them with your desktop computer. In my opinion, this seems to be as close to a "roll of film" as we can get at the moment - the storage is cheap and not volatile, just keep the pictures on the disks, no need to clutter up your hard drive. |
| Drats -- just bought an Olympus D-460 (Score:1) by lanner (jesse_molina@globalcenter.net) on Saturday April 22, @10:57PM EST (#381) (User Info) http://globalcenter.net |
| I just ordered a D460 online. The D460 is a revision of the D450, which was a revision of the D400. I hear that it is pretty good. We will see. I wish that I had the chance to see the outcome of all of these opinions before I bought it, but I already researched into it pretty heavily. I will supply a first had account when it arrives, on Tuesday. Having played around with one in store before, I think that I will be happy. I also ordered a 64MB SmartMedia card. These higher capacity cards have become available in the last few months, but are almost impossible to find offline. Another camera which is very similar to the D460 is the Kodak DC240. But, if you have the money, I hear that you should go for the Kodak DC290. It does not have the uncompressed image mode, the LCD viewer is not as nice, it is a little bigger, but it is overall superior. www.ibuyer.net is a good place to price compare. |
| Re:Drats -- just bought an Olympus D-460 (Score:1) by lanner (jesse_molina@globalcenter.net) on Sunday April 30, @09:27PM EST (#460) (User Info) http://globalcenter.net |
| Not too bad. I should have gone with the Kodak 240 though. It comes with the case, USB connector, and costs much less. Oh well. This one takes some pretty good pictures. I will not be returning it, but I think the Kodak would have been better. Kodak keeps dropping their prices. Olympus does not. |
| Silicon Film! An interesting option (Score:1) by kbahey (khalid.at.baheyeldin.dot.com) on Sunday April 23, @03:59AM EST (#411) (User Info) http://khalid.baheyeldin.com |
No one has mentioned this at all so far, and it has been overnight (overhere!). A company called Silicon Film makes a digital back that fits many pro-ish SLRs. The resolution is not the best, but think about all the lenses and features that you can use on an SLR! They sell an all in one package that consists of he back, a storage "container" and something that you can download the images to, while you are on the go! Very interesting. Now make it the same resolution as the Nikon CoolPix 990 and you have a winner!
|
| Jenoptic JD11 good, only 80 quid / 120 dollars (Score:3, Informative) by evilandi on Sunday April 23, @06:42AM EST (#414) (User Info) http://www.andrew.oakley.net |
The one I use is the Jenoptic JD11 (aka Praktica D500). Pros:
Cons:
For the price it is a superb camera, although it can't compete with models costing more than twice it's price. It's a case of knowing what it can do, and staying within it's limitations, then you get good results. Samples: www.custodian.com/album Manufacturer's page: www.jenoptik-camera. com/english/products/jd11/main.html |
| Just got my rebel 2k (Score:1) by slashdot-me (slashdot-me@HORMEL.altavista.net) on Sunday April 23, @07:37AM EST (#418) (User Info) http://www.ryans.dhs.org |
| I just picked up a canon rebel 2000 (analog) and a 50mm/1.8 lens. I'll bet my camera can take higher resolution pictures than the D1 and in general 'better' quality pictures with good slide film. On the other hand the D1 can probably take bursts faster and probably has a faster/smarter AF. But my camera+lens weighs 17 ounces. And the whole thing costed about $350. Bwaahahaha. On the other hand, photocd prices are nasty. Ryan sig: learn to spell. |
| Use 35mm, then scan the negs (Score:1) by tektsu on Sunday April 23, @08:07AM EST (#422) (User Info) |
| I use a 35mm camera, but I scan the negatives. This gives me a resolution consumer digital cameras can't touch (57MB file size). The Nikon LS-2000 scanner works very well for this. On the pure digital side, I recently got to play with a Nikon D1 (based on the F5 body, and accepting all standard Nikon lenses) for a few hours. It pretty much spoiled me for lesser digitals. It's only around 3 megapixel though. When one of these comes out that lets me use all my Nikon lenses and is in the 6 megapixel or higher range, I'm first in line to pick one up!
|
| Canon PowerShot Pro 70 (Score:1) by PacketOfCrisps on Sunday April 23, @10:00AM EST (#430) (User Info) |
| After much searching and reading. I think my choice would be for the above mentioned camera. A good range of features for a reasonable price ($574.00 @ thedigitaldog .com). For more info have a look at this review. PoC |
| digital only (Score:1) by calvinto on Sunday April 23, @12:49PM EST (#434) (User Info) http://www.arthole.net |
| I just came back from a trip to London where I took very nearly 1000 digital camera images with my fuji mx-700. My only complaints are boot time and smartcard write time. I think the newer versions improved this. I took 5 32mb cards on top of my 2 8mb cards and 1 2mb card. I also took 3 batteries. I bought a charger/powersupply while I was there and after that I had no problems. It's a great camera. I use it all the time and have stopped using my 35mm, because most of my shots are crappy anyway, and this way I can cut and crop and print whatever I want. All the pictures I took were 1280x1024. I came home with 150 shots I still could have taken. The cost per picture for the 5 32mb cards was about 2 cents less than taking actual photos and having them developed. But the cards can be reused over and over again. (plus it was an upfront cost because I had to pay my taxes the day after I got back which would have hampered developing film) Unless you are doing incredibly large prints, a digital camera is the way to go. I use it mostly for collecting images for use in paintings and just to record things happening around me (this morning it was bubble blowing) I was snap happy and took about 40 images. that's almost 2 rolls of film. The cost of doing this was nothing, because it's all reuse. Just in case you do want large prints, I recommend genuine fractal. It's a great bit of software for large format printing. I don't ever think about how much it costs to take a picture anymore, or if I run out of film, I just snap away. And it fits in my pocket so I literally can take it anywhere without anyone knowing I have it. Oh, and since my Mom doesn't have internet access (all my images are posted at 166.70.34.67/london/ ) it has the option to output video. I'll definitely buy another one. -calvin ps. My underwater camera is not digital, so I guess I'm not completely digital (yet) |
| Casio QV2000UX (Score:1) by DaveMcD (wiglaf_spam@yahoo.com) on Sunday April 23, @02:39PM EST (#437) (User Info) http://people.mw.mediaone.net/wiglaf |
| I did a lot of research when buying my camera, and found this to be the best bang for the buck, at $500. you need to make sure that you get OPTICAL zoom because digital is the same as pulling it into photoshop and making it bigger. This camera also can record small movies (about 30-90 seconds) and has support for the ibm microdrive, which can store 350 meg on it. :) It also has a lot of control over the image, unlike most of the cheaper cameras. -Wiglaf - Wiglaf [IoStream Productions] |
| Olympus c2020z vs cp950 (Score:1) by Deslock on Sunday April 23, @05:00PM EST (#438) (User Info) |
| i am a little late posting to this topic but i already had something typed up from when i picked a digicam last weekend, so i will copy and paste it here for anyone interested. wanted a good-for-all-occassion portable digicam. i narrowed it down to the nikon 950 and olympus c2020z (considered the tiny canon s10, but it's flash is too weak, battery life is poor, and is only 2x zoom). so, here are my cp950 vs c2020z notes: ***************************************** both pros - use aa nimh batteries - good battery life - 1600x1200 - good image quality (sharpness, color, etc...) - reasonably quick cycle and lag times - 3x zoom - manual and auto controls - continuous shooting modes cons - chromatic aberration (2020z worse than 950) - removable lense cape (vs built in cover) advantage 950 - amazing macro ability. like low power microsope. 2020 only focuses to 8". - has solid metal case - has bag - uses compact flash (but no cf2 support). 2020 uses smartmedia (up to 64mb) - swivel design useful in many situations - chromatic aberration not as bad on 950 as on 2020 - 2020 lense cap prevents lense from extending if left on (bad for camera?) advantage 2020 - smaller and lighter - f2.0/f2.8 (vs f2.6/4.0 on 950) - comes with remote - comes with 4 aa nimh and charger - panoramic function (requires olympus media) - better flash (950 has redeye problem) - can record quicktime movies - has distance readout for manual focus - battery life *slightly* better - cheaper: $476 vs $557 (950 = $657-$100 rebate... also need to add $40 for batteries/charger = $597) - 2020 in-stock at above price cf vs sm - cf has onboard controller (devices can read future releases. sm requires firmware update for future releases) - sm is more fragile - sm is smaller (though both are tiny) - sm takes less power for writing - sm is faster for writing ***************************************** i like cf a *little* better, but i'm somewhat indifferent to it since both have pros & cons. it came down to size/weight and speed of lense vs macro and swivel. if the 950 had been the same price, i might've gone with it instead. but the difference in price made the choice easier. i ordered an olympus c2020z sunday and got it wednesday. have taken ~ a hundred shots and a few movies so far... i am quite happy with it. check out these sites for reviews: www.steves-reviews.com www.imaging-resource.com |
| Re:Olympus c2020z vs cp950 (Score:1) by Deslock on Sunday April 23, @05:02PM EST (#439) (User Info) |
| > www.steves-reviews.com supposed to be: www.steves-digicams.com |
| try photo.net (Score:1) by yanagasawa on Monday April 24, @09:29AM EST (#451) (User Info) |
| You might find better answers (from a photographer's point of view) on Phil Greenspun's photo.net. |
| $47 Digital Camera at Fry's (Score:2) by billstewart (bill.nospam.stewart@pobox.spambert.com) on Monday April 24, @10:33AM EST (#453) (User Info) http://idiom.com/~wcs |
| Sure, it's a brand you've never heard of, only 640x480, doesn't have a flash, and uses a serial interface to the computer. But it's good enough to put pictures on your web site, and the price is close enough to disposable that you can just get one if you don't have a digital camera without deciding whether it's the right camera for you to spend real money on. Some of them come packaged as cameras; some come packaged as image editing software that throws in a camera, and maybe costs a few bucks more. Thanks! Bill Stewart |
| Another vote for Casio QV-2000UX - with links (Score:1) by mccabem on Monday April 24, @06:39PM EST (#455) (User Info) http://www.coil.com/~mbmccabe |
| Overall I'm really impressed by overall image quallity. The flash seems a bit too strong, but can be controlled. It's way kewl to be able to take a ~20 .AVI movie - very clear too! I don't wanna take up too much space telling you something others have already said better, so..... http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/casio/qv2000sx-review/index.html http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/Q2K/Q2KA.HTM http://www.steves-digicams.com/qv2000.html Here's a small page I set up with some samples of pictures and movies. Just took them all in a few minutes on a rainy day last week to show my Mom. :-) http://homepage.mac.com/mattmccabe/ |
| Floppy Disk cameras (Score:3, Interesting) by crow on Saturday April 22, @08:45AM EST (#10) (User Info) http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~crow/ |
| I've been interested in one of these, and a friend of mine has one. One thing that I wanted to try was to use superformat to create floppies that use extra tracks and extra sectors per track--virtually all drives will support this, and DOS is happy with it. Unfortunately, the camera flatly refuses to use any of the specially-formatted disks. (I suspect it would take some firmware hacking to get it to work.) So much for getting a little extra storage. |
| Re:Panasonic DIgital Camera (Score:1) by Bushman624 on Saturday April 22, @11:03AM EST (#178) (User Info) http://cl081.dhcp.ttu.edu |
| I read an article on the same camera the other day. I want that camera so bad. This thing can take 1500 pictures because it uses the SuperDisk which holds 120 megabytes. The camera is also an external drive for your computer through an USB interface. So just hook it up and transfer over the files. Also incase you cant afford a new disk or something it will read the good ol 1.44 floppies as well. It will do 1280x960 resolution. This thing will do a crapload more stuff including very very short videos made with Quicktime and still images that have 5 sec audio. Take a look at everything it will do on the website. |
| Re:Mavica (Score:1) by JeffCobb on Saturday April 22, @02:20PM EST (#280) (User Info) |
| Just another vote for the Mavica; we have tried a number of digital cameras since they first came out and while the quality is not what you would want for 100% of your picture-taking needs, it suffices for about 80-90% and the ability to save the pics directly to diskette so that nearly any computer anytime anyhwere can immediately use them is a most excellent bonus. |
| Re:Toshiba Allegretto M4 (Score:1) by solarlips on Saturday April 22, @02:38PM EST (#285) (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/solarlips |
| I agree the Toshiba PDR M-4 is a great camera, the pictures are very crisp due to its 2.1 megapixels. Battery time is excellent. And for the price I couldn't pass it up, I got mine for $300 =) w/ 8mb. Target had the wrong price in their ad and sold it to me for the quoted price. The only thing I wish it did have was an optical zoom. The casing is also very solid compared to many of the cameras out there that have a flimsy/cheep feeling. I give this camera 9/10. |
| Re:Mavica (Score:1) by y6y6y6 (jon@jonsullivan.com) on Saturday April 22, @07:47PM EST (#350) (User Info) http://www.jonsullivan.com |
| I've been using the Mavica FD-88 for my website for quite a while. I love this camera! I set up a database to make the photos searchable. I tried to do this before with a film based camera, but I was such a pain. The ability to snap a picture and have it up on the web in minutes has added a whole new demension to the website. And since it uses cheap floppies, I never have to worry about wasting space. I went to the wild animal park in San Diego last weekend and took over 90 pictures. On my site I have hundreds of photos that I took with a film camera and hundreds that I took with the Mavica. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And the options the camera gives you are quite niffty. Recently my film camera got stollen out of my car. I have no intention of buying another one. If I lost the Mavica, I'd buy another one the same day. Jon Sullivan www.jonsullivan.com |
A chronic disposition to inquiry deprives domestic felines of vital qualities.