Camera help please.

[liltommy]

Ok, I want to get the wife a digital camera for xmas.
I know very little about them.
Anybody wanna offer advice as what to stay away from? Please.

I know..
-the more pixels the better.
-optical zoom is better than digital zoom.
-a cheap camera will add 10lbs to your pict.

Upon first look I already have a question.
Whats Msduocard memory?
I've heard of the SD cards, and the sony memory sticks but not this duo thing.

Thanks everyone.
Tommy

[burghpunk]

I can't comment ont he msduocard thing, but I have a fuji fine pix e550 that is the cat's ass

[martin]

There's so many...

My first question (like if you were looking for a new bike) - What's your budget?

You can get some pretty cool digital cameras now a days, but there is a big technology (read features) gap as the price starts going up...

Second Question: Do you want a point and shoot or an SLR?

With a pocket point and shoot digital camera you're going to get good pictures, with an SLR you're going to get fantastic pictures.

Digital SLR's have a much bigger light sensor so they capture a lot more detail. Basically, you can get 8 megapixels out of a point and shoot, but a 5 megapixel digital SLR wiill probably get you a much better quality picture - make sense?

SLR's also allow you to change lenses, which means that you have lots of shooting options...

If you go thorugh the gallery you can see the difference between the quality of Joe's pics and those of others - granted Joe has a fantastic eye and his composition is superb, but you'll get the idea - I think Joe uses the same thing I do - a nikon D1X - body alone is upwards of $2,500 and when you add lenses...

You can get a pretty decent point and shoot digital camera for under $500.00. I'm partial to Nikons, but Canon makes some pretty good models. Google "Canon Powershot" or "Nikon Coolpix" and you'll get a bunch of hits - you can't go wrong with any of these.

If SLR is what you want, Sony has just come out with a $1,000 model called the DSC-R1 (I think) It's a hybrid SLR/Point and shoot - Not really a full SLR (fixed lens), but with a bigger light sensor than most point and shoots.

Best bet is to nail down your budget and decide what kind you want and go from there...

Best resources:
http://www.bhphoto.com
http://www.moosepeterson.com/
http://www.shutterbug.com/
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/

Hope that helped...

[mtbmore]

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/

Martin certainly would know since that is something he does for a living. I am on my 3rd generation of Digital camera. My first two were Canon's and I now have a Nikon D50 SLR. It is a great camera but it is bulky. If it is for your wife and she just wants to take goodpictures ad carry it in her purse or in a small cameera bag thet Canons, Nikons or even the HP point and shoots are really good. My wife is on her second generation Digital and she loves it. I finally got her to stop taking film pictures.

Scud

[bikerRob]

...With a pocket point and shoot digital camera you're going to get good pictures, with an SLR you're going to get fantastic pictures.
Digital SLR's have a much bigger light sensor so they capture a lot more detail. Basically, you can get 8 megapixels out of a point and shoot, but a 5 megapixel digital SLR wiill probably get you a much better quality picture - make sense?...

...

12/15/05 >> I know when it comes to digital cameras, Martin is the Man but with that said ( and this coming from the Peanut gallery)...there's nothing wrong with the cheaper point and shot models. Sure High Bling SLR will give a better picture with more detail, sharpness, etc. but a lot can be done with your cheaper Point and shoot models if you're willing to spend some bucks for some decent photo software. I use the Adobe Photoshop stuff. Sure it's not Professional quality but you can do a hell of a lot of stuff with it to enhance digital photos...change photo colors, hues, contrast, focus, darkness/lightness...great fun. I've taken pictures that came out totally crappy and turned them into works of art with the software. Okay, so SLR High Bling is still better... ;) but you still get good to great pictures using good software, some patience and some skill at editing.

[Squirrel Girl]

It depends on what you're doing with the pictures, whether more pixels are better. When my previous digital camera broke, I actually went DOWN in pixels for my next one. Right now, pretty much all I do is post pix on the web, so I have do reduce the number of pixels quite a bit when I post 'em. So right now I have a 3 MP camera. I keep promising myself that the next time I go on a good trip somewhere, I'll buy a good camera. But in the meantime, it's unnecessary. I'd rather wait to spend the money for something good when I really need it, since technology is always improving.

Here's one of my fav reviews:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

For a rather more economical model than the mentioned thus far, a friend of mine has a Canon S2 IS and it takes fantastic shots. I think he paid $500 for it.

[TrailVictim]

I picked up a Cannon PowerShot A95 last year when the reviews started rolling in and it's been great. Consumer Reports has given it excellent reviews in every report they've come out with. I was leaning towards a more expensive camera but the salesman at RITZ actually talked me out of it after I explained what I was looking use it for. You can pick one up online for less than $300 and the RITZ up by Fair Oaks Mall price matched one I found online.

Just my .0005 cents

[bkjoe]

I agree w/ SG - nothing wrong w/ 3-4 MP cameras. they do great for the web, e-mails & regular-sized prints.
FWIW, this is from Consumer Reports:

Best values for most people:
3 Canon, $170, CR Best Buy
17 Sony, $200
22 Olympus, $240, CR Best Buy

All have excellent print quality. The Canon PowerShot A510 (3) and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-S60 (17) are low-priced for 3- or 4-megapixel compact cameras. The Canon has manual controls and a 4x zoom but is the bulkiest of the three. The Olympus D-580 Zoom (22) and Sony have long battery life, but both lack manual controls

my 2 cents: there's a lot of camera out there for less than $300. Save money to buy a big memory card - the stock card won't hold all that many pix. If you're doing re-chargable batteries, get an extra set so you never get caught w/o. Also, optical zoom, good; dig. zoom, not so much (u can do that later on comp, if u want). Look for 3X Op Zoom minimum. Ask about the lag time - these lower end cameras wait a fraction of a second after u push the button before they capture the image. very frustrating sometimes.
Also, Olympus makes a weather-proof camera if you're looking for that.

good luck,
bk

[martin]

12/15/05 >> there's nothing wrong with the cheaper point and shot models.

Ditto.

I also have a Nikon CoolPix that I carry around when carrying the bigger SLR is impractical.

bikerRob also makes a good point about software... Last Christmas I hooked up my wife with this set-up (and she loves it - she just did our Christmas cards and photos with it...):

Nikon Coolpix 5600 (5MP) - about $250.00
HP PhotoSmart 325 Portable printer - $149.00
Ream of 4x6 paper, extra ink cartridge, printer charger ad carrying case.

By the time I was done I think I spent like $400.00

She has a mac and uses iPhoto...

I'm also on a mac, but I use Photo Mechanic in combination with Adobe Photoshop CS - but, like others ave mentioned here it's part of my professional toolset and may be overkill for you...

[skiandmtb]

I have a Canon Powershot SD300 a 4MP very compact camera (They now have a 5 and 7MP.) I gave my wife the Canon Digital Rebel last year (SLR) that we are very happy with. The Rebel XT is even better, and about the same money. Quality is about the same as the better, more expensive SLR Canon has. I can definitely see a difference on my computer screen between the two cameras, but it's probably a combination of the 6MP and the SLR lens. (Beneficial if you want to crop part of the picture to print.) The thing about mine is it's small enough to keep in my pocket, my camelbak, anywhere, so I always have it, so I always use it. The SLR is bigger, bulkier, and more subject to the...do I really want to carry it around? Figure out what you will use it for, and how portable you want it.

My website of choice...www.dpreview.com It has sample shots, their review, a rating and user opinions. I usually go to CNET.com or pcworld.com to use their shopbot for prices, sometimes www.streetprices.com.

The duocard thing is another Sony proprietary card that's a little faster, I think. Only Sony cameras will have it, and they will probably cost more per MB than an SD card.

LJ

[liltommy]

I'm just looking for a point and shoot.
With the way technology is advancing so quickly I thought it would be better to get some real life opinions.

Slr sound like way over-kill. Budget 2-3 hundred.

It would probly be good to stay away from any propietary format memory card right? Keep it too simpe SD cards.

Now I can spend the rest of the day going over the links yall have given me.

see

[Dirt]

Lots of good info here. I'll add a few things about how to shop for a camera.

I suggest going to a camera store... a place where people's jobs are cameras. They'll have answers or can get answers to your questions much better than you'll find at best buy or circuit city.

Dominion Camera in Falls Church is my favorite. I know that is a haul for you. Penn Camera (http://www.penncamera.com) has many different shops in the area and they have also given good customer service.

Things to consider:

Shutter Lag: Most point and shoot digital cameras have a brief delay between when you push the button and when the photo takes. There are good techniquest to minimize this, but you definitely want to test a camera to see how it performs in regards to shutter lag.

Menu System: A few years ago I upgraded from a 3mp camera to a 5mp camera. I found that I hated the new camera and suffered with it for two years before I finally replaced it. The source of my dislike for the camera was how the menu functions worked. In order to change the settings that I used most often, I had to scroll through a lot of menus and do 3 or 4 things in different menus. It took me 30-90 seconds to set up between shots. I HATED that and did a happy dance the day I gave that camera away. Sometimes you don't find those things out until you use a camera a little. As a general rule, I'd choose a camera that lets me change things using a dial or button on the camera, rather than scrolling through menus and looking at the screen to figure out what settings I wanted.

Included Software: This is a big deal if you're new to digital cameras. How easy is it to get your pictures out of the camera? Does it lend itself to easily organizing your photos? Do you get digital imaging software with the camera or do you have to buy that seperately.

Hopefully that is of some assistance.

Pete

[Dirt]

One more thing.... There was a good discussion on buying digital cameras that started about a year ago. Lots of people had some great ideas. Though some of it is out of date, a lot still applies.

You can find it HERE (http://www.more-mtb.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1128).

There are a bunch of really good photographers around here. They've got some good advice.

Pete

[liltommy]

I couldn't find the stupid search feature for the site.

There it is, at the top of the page.

Aren't the search buttons suppose to be at the bottom of the page?
Duh.

[BadMammaJamis]

IMHO opinion one of the most important aspects (being a father of a 2 year and wanting to get pics of her and also knowing nothing about photography) is the amount of time that it takes for a camera to focus, lock on and be ready to snap the pic (whatever thats called in camera-geek lingo). I have a canon and its awfully slow to do that, and as a result i miss a lot of pics cause it hasnt locked on and ready to shoot.

I couldn't find the stupid search feature for the site.

There it is, at the top of the page.

Aren't the search buttons suppose to be at the bottom of the page?
Duh.

[Dirt]

IMHO opinion one of the most important aspects (being a father of a 2 year and wanting to get pics of her and also knowing nothing about photography) is the amount of time that it takes for a camera to focus, lock on and be ready to snap the pic (whatever thats called in camera-geek lingo). I have a canon and its awfully slow to do that, and as a result i miss a lot of pics cause it hasnt locked on and ready to shoot.

That is a common problem with point and shoot cameras of a year or two ago. Canon's newest cameras that advertise the "Digic" processor, as well as the new offerings from Olympus, Nikon, Pentax and others have significantly reduced the "lock and snap" time of digital cameras. I suffered for two years with a horrible Nikon. I tried a new one out last week and it was fabulous.

Good post. Thanks for bringing that up.

Pete

[macdaid]

You might look at the Kodak EasyShare series.
Apart from the dork model name it's a very good product line.

I have a DX7590. It's configured like an SLR, but has digital viewfinder, along with an LCD. It's pretty compact and light, and despite the LCD config, it's pretty easy to handle, w/logical controls & good ergonomics.

The 10x zoom and flexible settings were also appealing.

It's flexible, but it has numerous presets for a variety of common conditions like action & sports, plus a very reliable automatic setting. So it can be used conveniently like a point+shoot. It also has favorites, so you can do cusom settings and save them.

My original intent was to use it for work, taking site reference photos, and fine art photography.

It also will do quick-time video with sound. Duration of the clips is limited only by the memory capacity, which can be augmented with SD cards. I'm using a 256 and I've maxed it only a couple times shooting stills with resolution set to 5 megapixels.

Great camera.
But... there are 2 things I don't like: it does have shutter lag. I've been finding myself getting impatient at times. I've compensated with the motor-drive setting, which will take 4 frames in quick sucession. This seems to work out most times.

The 2nd, there's no manual focus. And sometimes there's a lag before it locks on.

... and the 3rd - ok there are 3, 3 things I don't like; It's a bit too bulky to bring on the bike. But, I think I can figure out a way to do it conveniently. The video capacity alone makes it worth while, IMHO.

Here's a link:
http://www.digitalsaver.com/stores.asp?productid=8742439
I got mine off the web from another site, for a similar price. If I recall it was $400 with a $50 Kodak rebate...

My spouse has a point & shoot model (also Kodak), forget which. But she's really rough with it. It's totally battered looking these days, from rolling around on the floor of her van, getting dropped at jobsites, and just general abuse from being toted around by a distracted overachiever.

Short form - takes a likkin an keep's on tikkin.

[gaz]

If it's quality point and shoot you're after, then I recommend the Fuji Finepix. I've got the S5000 and like it a lot - the zoom on it is phenominal.

I might even have one for sale soon, as I'm thinking of stepping up to a digital SLR! :cool:

[CRAIG2]

My Canon Digital Rebel XT SLR should be getting here today or tomorrow :D

[CRAIG2]

If it's quality point and shoot you're after, then I recommend the Fuji Finepix. I've got the S5000 and like it a lot - the zoom on it is phenominal.

I might even have one for sale soon, as I'm thinking of stepping up to a digital SLR! :cool:


Hey - I just sent you a message - let me know if your thinking about stepping up some time soon?

Craig

[liltommy]

I went ahead and got here an ez share. 5mp with 4x/3x zoom for $199 and I 512 sd card. She was in picturce heaven when she saw she could take over 300 pictures.

Now my next problem.

Whats the best/cheapest place for having them turned into real picts.

I'm only on dialup at home so I would need to drop off\mail a cd or the memory card.

Any experiences?

[CRAIG2]

You can actually get a pretty decent quality photo printer these days for not a lot of bling - the real money sucker I've found is the cost of photo paper. I have Canon i860 printer, and it makes fantastic photos up to 8 x 11". You don't need an interet connection to save an print pictures.

Craig

[Dirt]

Whats the best/cheapest place for having them turned into real picts.

I'm only on dialup at home so I would need to drop off\mail a cd or the memory card.

Any experiences?

There are quite a few places that do good work. Kodak, Fuji and Olympus all have systems where you can bring a memory card or photos burned on a CD and have them printed onto photo paper. The Kodak and Fuji systems that I've seen have been in places like CVS or Walmart. The Olympus systems that I've seen have been in photography stores.

Naturally price is a big consideration. 24 cents seems to be the going rate for 4x6 prints. Some places charge a little more, others charge a little less. The cool thing is that if you burn it on a CD and find that the cheapest place makes crappy prints, you can take it to a better place. If you've got one or two photos that you really like, but they've got screwed up color or they're a little dark, you can take the CD to a real photo professional and have them adjust the color/brightness and print those few images. That costs more, but if you're just getting two images done, then it isn't necessarily a big deal.

I'd say start at a reasonably priced place like Costco or CVS (I'm not a Walmart fan, so I don't suggest that people ever go there). If you're not happy with the prints, then take your CD or memory card somewhere else. You might have to look around for the first bunch of photos, but after that you'll find a good place.

The automated systems like the Kodak and Fuji are pretty much standardized. From what I understand, as long as the machine is operating normally, you'll get pretty close results from every Kodak machine you go to. It is the same for the Fuji system.

I have used the system at a Costco in Ohio. I believe it was the Kodak machine. It was easy to use and fast and I was impressed with the prints. I'd use it again for 4x6s. It was cheaper than printing them at home on my photo printer when you take into account paper, ink and the initial investment for a printer.

Okay. I've babbled on enough.

I'll start a new post in a second that has even more detail (if you can believe that.)

Pete

[Dirt]

Okay. I talked a little about some of the systems that are out there. That list is by no means comprehensive.

Lets talk about some of the problems/advantages of digital photography and getting prints made. I'll start talking about film.

Film basically reacts to light when the shutter of a lens is open to take a photo. Different brands and varieties of film react to light in different ways. Different kinds of film are more or less sensitive to light. Some are great for landscapes colors and have amazing greens (traditionally Fuji films do that best) while others do better at capturing skin tones (kodak and illford have a good reputation for that). Choose your film based on what you're going to shoot. Most people use an all-purpose film that is fast enough to shoot well inside and slow enough to get good detail outside. They want something that makes trees and people look good.

With digital cameras, there isn't film to change how the image reacts to what comes in the lens. There's an image sensor and you've got controls for ISO speed (sets how sensitive the sensor is to light) and color balance (adjusts photos based on what kind of light you're shooting in (daylight, flash, fluorescent)). Most point and shoots are set to "Auto" for both of those settings. It works pretty well.

Why the hell am I talking about all this???? There is a reason, honest.

The prints you get out of an automated machine are only as good as the photos that were captured in the camera. It is true for both film and digital. Digital requires a little more work on your part. With film you just pick your film and let the camera do the thinking. The bad part about that is if you get a really bad exposure with film, there isn't much you can do to fix it. With digital, you've got more flexibility (within reason). Color adjustment is a bit easier. You can do a certain abount of exposure adjustment too (how bright or dark a photo is) without damaging or changing the original.

Automated machines can't make those changes. If you take pictures on the wrong settings, you can sometimes still get good images, but you might have to pay someone to fix it.

The coolest thing about digital printing is that you only print the photos that you really like. :D Printing individual images from a digital camera tends to be more expensive, but when you consider that you will only print the ones that really turn out, most folks end up saving money on processing. You won't find out how many good shots you got on a roll of 36 film until you get them all developed. With the digital you know that you got 2 good shots and those are the only two you print.

Hopefully that is of some help.

Good luck.

Pete

[gaz]

Of course the other nice option is the wonderful world of editing - as Pete mentioned, those automated machines can make some changes, but not too many. But armed with a copy of Photoshop and a little knowhow, you can edit the images on your digital media (at least you can on my mac, since it recognizes any camera/digital media adapter plugged into it as a removable disc) and just save over them. So if you have a slightly blurry image, you can sharpen it up. Convert color images to black and white, or black and white to sepia. Cut and paste, create montages, you're only limited by your ability with the program.

[Dirt]

Of course the other nice option is the wonderful world of editing - as Pete mentioned, those automated machines can make some changes, but not too many. But armed with a copy of Photoshop and a little knowhow, you can edit the images on your digital media (at least you can on my mac, since it recognizes any camera/digital media adapter plugged into it as a removable disc) and just save over them. So if you have a slightly blurry image, you can sharpen it up. Convert color images to black and white, or black and white to sepia. Cut and paste, create montages, you're only limited by your ability with the program.

Hey Craig! He said "montage". Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

But seriously folks.

All of what Gary said is very true. But that still requires that you get the photos off your computer and onto paper. You can get a good photo printer for $150 and up. Even with owning your own printer, it is difficult to get close to the per-print cost of an automated kiosk. Trust me, I've done my own printing for years. You're not saving money by using your own printer... with maybe one exception... Hitech makes a pretty good printer that is reasonably priced archival prints. You can't use it for anything but photos though.

Okay. Sorry to overkill that answer. I should have used a montage. Bwahahahahahahahaha

Pete

[CRAIG2]

Durka durka durka! :)

Ok, my printer was gift. It's nice, and supposed to be efficient on ink. Definitely made lab quality prints from our Maine vacation, though, at the time my camera was only a 2MP deal so things got a little grainy at the 8 x 11" print size.